Question about tagging aspects

[devonapple]

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?

A high Conviction or Discipline would ideally have initially come into play resisting the Maneuver. Ditto a Stunt related to same. An appropriate Aspect could have been tagged (with a Fate Point) for a +2 to resist the Maneuver.

An Aspect would assuredly need a Fate Point to be Invoked that way, which is no different from just buying off the Compel with a Fate Point.

A player could theoretically have used high Conviction or Discipline to make a navel-gazing Maneuver to place a sticky Aspect on the character relating to mental rigor or spiritual purity, which could (if previously unused) be tagged/invoked for free for either a bonus to roll a defense against the Maneuver, or perhaps to counter an attempt to Invoke it.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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

This. 

[devonapple]

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

I think there is a disparity between what a player would spend to avoid something, and what that something is actually worth.

In a dire situation, would/could a player spend a Fate Point to counter the +2 from an NPC tagging a Consequence or personal Aspect?

[UmbraLux]

In a dire situation, would/could a player spend a Fate Point to counter the +2 from an NPC tagging a Consequence or personal Aspect?

Yes.  That's pretty much the function of allowing both parties to spend fate points on an opposed roll.  And, if the aspect was on the PC, he is offered the fate point.

[devonapple]

But a PC or an NPC is not offered a Fate Point for the first free tag of an Aspect if it's just for a +2.

[UmbraLux]

But a PC or an NPC is not offered a Fate Point for the first free tag of an Aspect if it's just for a +2.

For the first invoke of a newly discovered or created aspect, no.  Why the semantic games?  I don't see what this has to do with deciding not to pay fate for "something minor" - or at least something you classified as minor.  Or have I missed a subject switch?

[JesterPoet]

Out of curiosity, how does this work if it's the other way around.  If Mary the PC knight puts the aspect on the Demon keeping him from leaving the room?  Does the GM give him a fate point if he complies and make him spend one if he wants to buy out?

[UmbraLux]

Out of curiosity, how does this work if it's the other way around.  If Mary the PC knight puts the aspect on the Demon keeping him from leaving the room?  Does the GM give him a fate point if he complies and make him spend one if he wants to buy out?

Are you talking about compelling the demon?  If so, yes, it would receive a fate point.  Either from the player or from the GM's bottomless pool.
-----
Fate point use:
- Invokes are fairly straight forward, the invoker pays* a fate point and gets a +2 bonus to the relevant skill.  If the aspect used is attached to the victim of the skill, said victim receives* the fate point.
- Compels are more complex in leaving room for negotiation of details.  Once details are decided, the compeller offers** a fate point to the compellee and the compellee decides whether to buy it off by paying a fate point (in which case the compeller keeps both fate points) or accept both the fate point and the compel which comes with it.

*Newly created or discovered aspects get on free 'tag' - an invoke which doesn't involve a fate point changing hands.  Or...
**...the newly created aspect's tag may be used as an 'invoke for effect' which initiates a GM compel.  A fate point from the GM's stash is offered to the compellee.  If bought off, both fate point's go to the GM's pool.

The book complicates it with some situational jargon but the above is what it boils down to.  The difficult part is negotiating the details of the compel.   

[Tedronai]

- Compels are more complex in leaving room for negotiation of details.  Once details are decided, the compeller offers** a fate point to the compellee and the compellee decides whether to buy it off by paying a fate point (in which case the compeller keeps both fate points) or accept both the fate point and the compel which comes with it.

This is potentially deceptive in that it implies that characters/players can compel other characters/players, which is not true.
Players can trigger compels, but the compel itself is negotiated between the 'compellee' and the GM, and if the compellee refuses, the player that triggered the compel does not receive either a refund of their tag/FP, nor do they receive the FP that the compellee payed.

[devonapple]

For the first invoke of a newly discovered or created aspect, no.  Why the semantic games?  I don't see what this has to do with deciding not to pay fate for "something minor" - or at least something you classified as minor.  Or have I missed a subject switch?

Your stance seemed to imply to me that the first free tag of a newly placed Aspect nets the victim/target a Fate Point, whether it be for a +2, Invoke for Effect (minor inconvenience) or Invoke-for-Effect (triggering a Compel). We may be agreeing in circles around each other, but the abrupt and definitive stance evoked by this quote led to the understanding I mentioned:

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

[UmbraLux]

This is potentially deceptive in that it implies that characters/players can compel other characters/players, which is not true.
Players can trigger compels, but the compel itself is negotiated between the 'compellee' and the GM, and if the compellee refuses, the player that triggered the compel does not receive either a refund of their tag/FP, nor do they receive the FP that the compellee payed.

As I noted, there is some situational jargon which complicates things.  Speaking of jargon, "invoke for effect" seems little more than jargon for "compel".  That said, when not talking about a tag, I think players can compel each other or NPCs without the jargon laced complications - seem to remember an example in the book.    I'll have to look it up tomorrow though, too tired tonight.

Your stance seemed to imply to me that the first free tag of a newly placed Aspect nets the victim/target a Fate Point, whether it be for a +2, Invoke for Effect (minor inconvenience) or Invoke-for-Effect (triggering a Compel). We may be agreeing in circles around each other, but the abrupt and definitive stance evoked by this quote led to the understanding I mentioned:

The first comment was in reply to this:

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).

Essentially putting the player in a lose - lose situation, i.e. "take the compel and no fate point or pay a fate point to avoid it". 

I interpreted that as basing whether or not the compellee gets a fate point on a perceived 'value' of the compel...which I don't think is supported in the text.  If I read too much into that then we have been talking circles around each other.   

[sinker]

Treating "Invoke for effect" and "Compel" as two different terms for the same action is a poor idea. They are definitely two different things.

A compel is a GM tool. The GM compels to limit a character in a significant way. A compel may be negotiated by the table if they decide that there are other circumstances that they feel will improve the compel. The GM funds a compel using his own Fate points. A character must spend a fate point to refuse a compel.

An invoke for effect is a player (or perhaps character) tool. An invoke for effect creates specific circumstances that are beneficial to the character. This is sometimes simply a positive circumstance that harms no one (I.E. access to specific resources, or the "Fortuitous Arrival"), but at other times the effect desired is negative for another character. Under these circumstances the player cannot compel, so they still invoke for effect and then it is up to the GM whether he feels it is significant enough to require a compel.

I believe what Devonapple was saying is that those circumstances, while negative, aren't significant enough and are therefore "Weak compels". Personally my stance on weak compels is to give the compel more teeth (and justify an actual compel) but it seems Devonapple's stance is to leave the circumstances as they are and simply not give out a fate point. Consequently I would assume that the target could not buy out of these momentary disadvantages.

Edit: Additionally you were questioning where one would see this kind of value judgement in the text. It's right here:

When judging whether or not a compel is
“worthy,” the primary thing to look for is whether
the outcome provides a palpable sense of consequence
to the character and/or the story. If the
outcome isn’t going to create something that’s
going to matter much in the grand scheme of
things, then it probably isn’t enough to work as
a compel.

[devonapple]

As I noted, there is some situational jargon which complicates things.  Speaking of jargon, "invoke for effect" seems little more than jargon for "compel".  That said, when not talking about a tag, I think players can compel each other or NPCs without the jargon laced complications - seem to remember an example in the book.    I'll have to look it up tomorrow though, too tired tonight.
The first comment was in reply to this: Essentially putting the player in a lose - lose situation, i.e. "take the compel and no fate point or pay a fate point to avoid it". 

I interpreted that as basing whether or not the compellee gets a fate point on a perceived 'value' of the compel...which I don't think is supported in the text.  If I read too much into that then we have been talking circles around each other.   

I think some circle-talking has been occurring, but such is the occasional price of electronic discourse. I think we agree on the basics. All I was adding was the possibility that a player faced with such a minor inconvenience may still possibly opt to throw a Fate point at it to make the minor inconvenience not happen, even though the effect is not itself the same strength as a Compel. Not a very effective use of a Fate point, mind you, but if they have a lot of them, it may come up.

[UmbraLux]

I think some circle-talking has been occurring, but such is the occasional price of electronic discourse.

Too true.  We need cyberpunk style interfaces with avatars channeling appropriate tone and body language. 

Treating "Invoke for effect" and "Compel" as two different terms for the same action is a poor idea. They are definitely two different things.

A compel is a GM tool. The GM compels to limit a character in a significant way. A compel may be negotiated by the table if they decide that there are other circumstances that they feel will improve the compel. The GM funds a compel using his own Fate points. A character must spend a fate point to refuse a compel.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it would be a bad idea for players to be able to compel NPCs?  Or have I misunderstood?

An invoke for effect is a player (or perhaps character) tool. An invoke for effect creates specific circumstances that are beneficial to the character. This is sometimes simply a positive circumstance that harms no one (I.E. access to specific resources, or the "Fortuitous Arrival"), but at other times the effect desired is negative for another character. Under these circumstances the player cannot compel, so they still invoke for effect and then it is up to the GM whether he feels it is significant enough to require a compel.

YS22 is pretty explicit on putting compels in player territory - "This isn’t just the GM’s show; you can trigger compels as well—on yourself or on others—either by explicitly indicating that an aspect may be complicating things or by playing to your aspects from the get-go and reminding the GM after the fact that your character already behaved as if compelled. The GM isn’t always obligated to agree that a compel is appropriate, but it’s important that players participate here."

Admittedly, I prefer to avoid PC vs PC compels outside of helping each other call out self compels.  It comes too close to PvP which I generally avoid.  But compelling NPCs is fair game...and how some of my major NPCs get fate points.

I believe what Devonapple was saying is that those circumstances, while negative, aren't significant enough and are therefore "Weak compels". Personally my stance on weak compels is to give the compel more teeth (and justify an actual compel) but it seems Devonapple's stance is to leave the circumstances as they are and simply not give out a fate point. Consequently I would assume that the target could not buy out of these momentary disadvantages.

Edit: Additionally you were questioning where one would see this kind of value judgement in the text. It's right here:

Yep, that takes your approach of rejecting the compel though - an approach I agree with.

[sinker]

I don't think that players compelling is a bad idea per se, that's just my understanding of the rules, and I think being clear and concrete like that helps in situations like this where questions arise.

Personally what I see in the rules is a regular statement that players "Trigger" compels. Notice in your quote that it never states that the player would fund or run these compels, merely that they might suggest them. There's even a bit in the rules elsewhere where it makes a similar statement and then goes on to say that the GM should run the compel once suggested.

I remembered a great example from my local group of an Invoke for effect that effected others negatively, but did not trigger a compel. We had a conflict in the middle of a mountain highway. One of the players realized this, made a declaration of "Holy ****, a semi!" and then invoked for effect. The GM decided that instead of compelling people he would run it as an environmental attack on everyone in the appropriate zones. No fate points were offered because everyone had the opportunity to avoid the attack, and indeed almost everyone did (one of the NPCs failed and one of the players asked if he could simply treat it like a compel, take the damage and receive a fate point).