Hexing! We got a problem

[ways and means]

So long as the mortal gets paid for it.


I suggest either buying out of that compel or demanding escalation.
If you meant that to amount to 'you die', then that's another issue, and such a compel should be refused entirely (not bought off).

If the caster spends their action intentionally hexing its not a compel it closer to an attack on an item. If the caster says that the ambient magic of all of his casting should hex the gun mans gun (without an action) then its a compel. If a caster tries to intentionally hex a plane whilst on it (unless its a heroic sacrifice moment) well unless the party can fly or cast a gate to the never never we are talk tpk or gm mandate.   

[BumblingBear]

My .02.

Hexing should not cause stress, however, it should cause in-game consequences.

For instance, in a game I ran, a practitioner put the whammy on a bad guy's gun, but he has a mild mental consequence of "frazzled".  I compelled this aspect, and while he was able to hex the bad guy's gun, he also hexed all the electrical doo-dads in the building behind him, starting a huge fire and attracting the authorities.

Almost anything can be handled via story.

[PapaD]

You may also want to consider which aspects of the gun were hexed

The basic mechanism of a gun, even a fancy modern one, are pretty simple and have been around for a while - unless the wizard predates world war II, or the gun is some super high tech thing, chances are the hexing won't do much (though your laser sight may be screwed)

[Malkyne]

If the caster says that the ambient magic of all of his casting should hex the gun mans gun (without an action) then its a compel.

The OP's situation clearly fits into this category.  It was a case where the ambient magic was causing hexing as a side-effect.  The trouble was that it felt like it should be a compel, but you can't compel someone without an aspect to compel.  Because it was not deliberate hexing, there had been no mechanic (such as a maneuver) to establish an appropriate aspect on the gunman to compel.

The solution that I feel provides the most appealing fit of mechanics to purpose (for both PCs and NPCs) is for the caster spending a Fate Point to make a Declaration to apply an appropriate aspect (e.g. "Buzzing with ambient magic!") on the scene/zone and then the players in that scene/zone can be compelled using that aspect -- if the caster pays a Fate Point for each player being compelled (see "Scene Compels", page 107).  What is especially tasty about this approach is that the new aspect provides further invoke/compel possibilities that may not have been initially anticipated (and can plausibly backfire, if the caster has friends who are also using technology!).

[Mr. Death]

The OP's situation clearly fits into this category.  It was a case where the ambient magic was causing hexing as a side-effect.  The trouble was that it felt like it should be a compel, but you can't compel someone without an aspect to compel.  Because it was not deliberate hexing, there had been no mechanic (such as a maneuver) to establish an appropriate aspect on the gunman to compel.

The NPC's "Wizard" aspect is plenty to compel. A Compel doesn't have to be an aspect on the person being compelled.

[JDK002]

The wizard already paid refresh for being able to hex as part of his powers and gets the significant drawback of not being able to use technology, which no other character type gets in the world. Intentional hexing without both being mortal and having a lot of refresh on magic costs 1 refresh as a stand-alone power, similar cost to possessing some of the rarer catches like "Holy".

Essentially, it is not that the wizard is hexing technology. It is that technology has the "catch" of mortal magic. Just like everyone in this world has a significant weakness, so does technology have the weakness of hexing. By removing that factor, you change the balance of power significantly.

Saying it works like a catch is flawed.  You still need to land a "to hit" roll in most cases to take advantage of a catch.  You can swing an iron sword at a Sidhe all day, the catch is moot if you can't land a swing.

Hexing has no such stipulation.  Heck, it has virtually no stipulation other than the broad "technology" requirement.

[Tedronai]

The NPC's "Wizard" aspect is plenty to compel. A Compel doesn't have to be an aspect on the person being compelled.

I'm pretty sure that this is not true.  Or mostly not true (scene aspects, city aspects, theme/threat aspects, etc. blur this line).  I'm pretty sure that one character cannot be compelled on the basis of another character's personal aspects.

[JDK002]

I'm pretty sure that this is not true.  Or mostly not true (scene aspects, city aspects, theme/threat aspects, etc. blur this line).  I'm pretty sure that one character cannot be compelled on the basis of another character's personal aspects.

They can, it's just not particularly common.  A character, PC or otherwise, can invoke or be compelled by any aspect they are interacting with.  The source of the aspect doesn't matter, as long as it makes sense that the aspect would affect the action being taken.

[Mr. Death]

I'm pretty sure that this is not true.  Or mostly not true (scene aspects, city aspects, theme/threat aspects, etc. blur this line).  I'm pretty sure that one character cannot be compelled on the basis of another character's personal aspects.

You're mistaken, then. Compelling a scene aspect against someone isn't "blurring this line," it's clearly not the person's personal aspect being compelled.

If someone's person aspect is creating a complication, then the person who's having their life complicated is compelled. If a Wizard can't throw a fireball because the room has an aspect of "Filled with gasoline vapors," then it's not compelling the wizard's aspect, it's compelling the room's aspect against the Wizard.

[Tedronai]

If someone's person aspect is creating a complication, then the person who's having their life complicated is compelled. If a Wizard can't throw a fireball because the room has an aspect of "Filled with gasoline vapors," then it's not compelling the wizard's aspect, it's compelling the room's aspect against the Wizard.

The room that the wizard is IN.  With aspects describing its contents.  Some of those contents being the wizard.  Who himself has aspects describing him.
That's quite a bit different than the tech-wiz in the next room over being compelled by the wizard's flaring frustration (at the infeasability of his usual method of problem-solving in his current predicament) to have his tablet explode in his face.

[Mr. Death]

The room that the wizard is IN.  With aspects describing its contents.  Some of those contents being the wizard.  Who himself has aspects describing him.

The room's aspects are not the wizard's aspects. The aspect is describing the room, not the wizard. Yet the wizard is the one who is getting the fate point, because the room aspect is being compelled against him.

That's quite a bit different than the tech-wiz in the next room over being compelled by the wizard's flaring frustration (at the infeasability of his usual method of problem-solving in his current predicament) to have his tablet explode in his face.

Well, no. Because it's not the tech-wiz's aspect that's causing the complication--it's the wizard's. The Wizard's aspect is compelling the tech-wiz.

[Tedronai]

The entire purpose of there being a scene 'entity' able to possess aspects is to have those aspects be able to affect whatever characters might at whatever point be present in that scene (directly, as would aspects of the individual characters themselves).  This is not true of characters.  Thus, the two scenarios presented are definitively distinct.

[Mr. Death]

The entire purpose of there being a scene 'entity' able to possess aspects is to have those aspects be able to affect whatever characters might at whatever point be present in that scene (directly, as would aspects of the individual characters themselves).  This is not true of characters.  Thus, the two scenarios presented are definitively distinct.

Except in the relevant sense that they are able to be compelled against a character who does not possess those aspects.

Otherwise, the average NPC's aspects will almost never negatively affect PCs, because the average NPC isn't going to have fate points to invoke their own aspects.

[Tedronai]

Except in the relevant sense that they are able to be compelled against a character who does not possess those aspects.

Except in so far as scene aspects are placed on the whole of the scene, which includes those characters which are a part of that scene.

Otherwise, the average NPC's aspects will almost never negatively affect PCs, because the average NPC isn't going to have fate points to invoke their own aspects.

Characters without FP pools of their own don't typically matter enough to have such substantial impacts on the story.  When otherwise minor NPCs do require such interaction, they may make use of shared FP pools, debt, or be compelled themselves.

[UmbraLux]

It may simply be confusion in the terminology - differentiating between tags, invokes, compels, and invokes for effect shouldn't be necessary.  So avoiding the terms...
...a character may spend a fate point to gain from any relevant aspect.  Relevant aspects may include personal, zone, scene, city, and current action's target or attacker as long as they are in the associated role.  A bystander's aspects are probably not relevant.  If the result directly and negatively impacts a victim they usually gain the fate point.
...a character can't use their own aspect to directly affect an opponent.  It's not tied to the opponent and isn't directly relevant.  They can use it indirectly - i.e. gain a bonus or change the situation to help themselves.  So Bill might use his I Love a Smackdown aspect to add a bonus to his own attack roll against Fred but he can't use it to see someone else beat Fred down or to weaken Fred directly.