Question about tagging aspects

[UmbraLux]

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.

Perhaps YS98 is a better reference then...it states "The process of using an aspect begins by proposing that one is relevant. Either a player or the GM may make this proposal. Next, determine if the aspect’s relevance is working  for or against the character that has the aspect.

As a general rule, if it’s for, it is considered an invocation and the character will probably be spending a fate point; if it’s against, it’s considered a compel and the character will probably be receiving a fate point."

To me it doesn't really matter who initiates it or what it's called.  (Work is full of jargon, I'm used to attempting to look past the terms to the meaning.)  That's why I tried to avoid too much jargonese in the post a few days ago. 

[sinker]

I would normally agree with removing jargon, but again I don't think that they are the same thing, so to call them the same thing is a bad idea. The difference is in the funding. A player funds an invoke. The GM funds a compel.

Additionally the GM (and to a lesser extent the table) decides whether a compel is appropriate and may refuse to compel or even alter the compel to something entirely different (as long as it's appropriate to the aspect/situation).

None of these things are true of invokes.

[UmbraLux]

The difference is in the funding. A player funds an invoke. The GM funds a compel.

The text doesn't support this - the "Using Aspects" section on YS98 doesn't include who initiates as relevant at all.  Just whether or not the aspect owner / attachee was adversely affected.

Additionally the GM (and to a lesser extent the table) decides whether a compel is appropriate and may refuse to compel or even alter the compel to something entirely different (as long as it's appropriate to the aspect/situation).

I agree...though I hesitate to call the table's input "lesser". 

[sinker]

The text doesn't support this - the "Using Aspects" section on YS98 doesn't include who initiates as relevant at all.  Just whether or not the aspect owner / attachee was adversely affected.

It's true, there really isn't a lot in the text to support this. The closest I could find in the RAW is this

If you are aware of and can access an
aspect on another character or NPC, you may
spend a fate point to try to trigger the circumstances
of a compel (see page 100) on the target. If
the GM decides this is a compel-worthy circumstance,
then she takes the offered fate point and
proceeds with a compel, running it as if she had
initiated the compel herself.

However what it really comes down to is when asked directly "Can a player compel?" Fred responded by saying a player invokes for effect, which may trigger a compel from the GM. That seems pretty clear to me.

[UmbraLux]

It's true, there really isn't a lot in the text to support this. The closest I could find in the RAW is this

That does confuse the issue doesn't it?   

However what it really comes down to is when asked directly "Can a player compel?" Fred responded by saying a player invokes for effect, which may trigger a compel from the GM. That seems pretty clear to me.

Wasn't the question to Fred about using free tags to compel? 

[sinker]

There are a couple of places where he has said similar variations on that. One of them was Devonapple asking whether or not free tags could compel.

Here's a good quote from Set Abominae's questions here (emphasis added of course):

It's in the text (though not always caught by the reader) that Invoke for Effect is, in essence, an event that begins a compel. The GM runs that compel (because it's her job to run compels), but the IFE is what got that ball rolling.

[UmbraLux]

Interesting, that certainly pushes it towards keeping the terms separate.

Thinking back over recent games, I'm not sure it matters much functionally.  Can't remember ever buying off a player compel...always negotiated to something agreeable and took the fate point for the NPC.