Hexing! We got a problem

[Mr. Death]

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.

I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from. A scene aspect describes the area, not the people.

If I'm playing a middle-aged, middle class white guy and he ends up in South Central LA, then the scene aspect of "Gang Warfare" doesn't really describe him, does it?

If I'm playing a wizard, and the scene aspect is, "The building is on fire!" I rather hope it doesn't describe my wizard.

If I'm playing a pure mortal who's stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, the scene aspect of, "Faerie Games Are Deadly (if kinky!)" doesn't describe the pure mortal.

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.

Doesn't the book suggest that NPCs and antagonists with fate point pools be something of a rarity, rather than the norm?

[nick012000]

If I'm playing a middle-aged, middle class white guy and he ends up in South Central LA, then the scene aspect of "Gang Warfare" doesn't really describe him, does it?

It might, if he stumbles into the middle of a shootout between the Crips and Bloods.

If I'm playing a wizard, and the scene aspect is, "The building is on fire!" I rather hope it doesn't describe my wizard.

Well, if he's in the burning building, it certainly would.

If I'm playing a pure mortal who's stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, the scene aspect of, "Faerie Games Are Deadly (if kinky!)" doesn't describe the pure mortal.

Sure it does! He's just stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, after all!

[BumblingBear]

I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from. A scene aspect describes the area, not the people.

If I'm playing a middle-aged, middle class white guy and he ends up in South Central LA, then the scene aspect of "Gang Warfare" doesn't really describe him, does it?

If I'm playing a wizard, and the scene aspect is, "The building is on fire!" I rather hope it doesn't describe my wizard.

If I'm playing a pure mortal who's stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, the scene aspect of, "Faerie Games Are Deadly (if kinky!)" doesn't describe the pure mortal.
Doesn't the book suggest that NPCs and antagonists with fate point pools be something of a rarity, rather than the norm?

I'm not sure what the RAW are, but in my games all NPCs have one pool of fate points that get drawn from as needed.

[Mr. Death]

It might, if he stumbles into the middle of a shootout between the Crips and Bloods.
Well, if he's in the burning building, it certainly would.
Sure it does! He's just stumbled into Maeve's boudoir, after all!

No, you're missing the point. The middle aged white guy isn't part of the gang warfare--it's something unrelated to him, that doesn't describe him, but is affecting him.

The wizard isn't on fire, but it's affecting him.

The mortal isn't part of the Faerie court--but it's affecting him.

None of those aspects describe the person being affected--but they still affect said person.

[JDK002]

Seems like some people have a bit of a misunderstanting of what aspects are.  They are not just character or location descriptions, they are anything and everything that could affect the outcome of any given situation.

I've kinda lost what the mechanical arguement even is anymore.  I can't cite the page, but I know YS gives a very explicit example of one PC invoking an aspect on a different PC's character sheet for a +2 roll bonus.  If that right there doesn't say you can invoke/compel any aspect in play that makes narrative sense then I don't know what does.

[noclue]

I'm confused here too. There's a wizard, a gunman, and a room full of magic. Somebody wants the gunman's gun to be hexed.

If the GM wants the gun hexed, it's easy. GM throws the gunman a FP and says "there's a lot of ambient magic here. Your gun goes click...fizz...nothing. Guess something's wrong" (revealing and compelling a scene aspect)."

If the wizard wants an "unintentional" hexing of the gun, she invokes her High concept and pays a FP. And then the GM hands the FP to the gunman and says "ah, gun no worky."

If the gunman, for some reason wants their own gun hexed, it's a pretty easy self compel on the magic every one knows is in the room. Gunman gets paid.

Things change up a smidge if the wizard or the gunman is an NPC, but not very much.

[Tedronai]

(revealing and compelling a scene aspect)

Essentially, this little tidbit here is the point of contention.
Some of us believe there should be such an aspect.  Some of us apparently believe that the wizard's own aspect reflecting their heightened emotional state is sufficient in itself.

[noclue]

It seems like a "counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" argument, but okay.

As GM, I would focus on the thing that makes the wizard's aspect relevant to the compel on the gunman, which enables the compel to make sense in the fiction. It such a simple matter to just compel and invoke that thing as a scene aspect, why am I bothering with indirect compels and invokes at all?

It's an interesting philosophical discussion, I guess.

[Tedronai]

A wizard's throwing of a tantrum doesn't hex nearby technology.
A wizard's throwing of a tantrum causes him to 'leak' now-ambient magic.
Ambient magic hexes nearby technology.

[Mr. Death]

A wizard's throwing of a tantrum doesn't hex nearby technology.
A wizard's throwing of a tantrum causes him to 'leak' now-ambient magic.
Ambient magic hexes nearby technology.

So semantics to argue that we need to take a couple extra, meaningless steps to get the same result we could get by just compelling the first aspect, which is entirely allowable anyway?

Let's say it's not magic. You have a couple goons on your side, one of whom has the aspect along the lines of, "Wild, uncontrolled bursts." The aspect means that his gunfire goes wild, and you have to dodge. Do you say that he is leaking "now ambient bullets"? Or can we, you know, just do the simple thing of compelling the already existing aspect without having to jump through hoops to do something that's entirely allowable in the rules as written anyway?

[Tedronai]

Sounds to me like a compel against whatever aspect represents the relationship with that unstable/unreliable goon.

[Mr. Death]

Sounds to me like a compel against whatever aspect represents the relationship with that unstable/unreliable goon.

There's no relationship. He's a hired goon that you've never seen before, and who has no opinion of you personally. He's just a really crappy shot--the only factor applying to you having to dodge is his own personal aspect.

So the options are, either A. you can just directly compel his aspect against the person being inconvenienced, or B. you jump through some hoops to get the same exact result, only with two or three extra steps, when to my knowledge, there's no RAW reason you should have to.

Speaking of Scene Compels in particular:

Scene aspects may imply some circumstances
that will befall any (or many) of the characters
in the scene—Everything Is Burning! is
a classic example and a frequent aspect in any
scene involving Harry Dresden. In such a case,
it’s entirely apropos to act as if that aspect is on
each character’s sheet and compel (see page 100)
the aspect for each of them, dishing fate points
all around and nicely covering the effects the
aspect has on the characters in the scene.

[noclue]

I think compelling scene aspects is the easy part of the question.

Like, if one character is shooting and has the aspect "wild uncontrollable bursts" I can definitely compel him to have his shots go all over the place, and then I can turn to the wizard and say "there are shots all over the place, give me a dodge roll at a difficulty of 4." I don't have t compel the wizard at all in that case. I can alternatively compel the shooter and place a scene aspect "errant gunfire!" Now, as long as the shooting is still going on, I can compel folks. What I don't like is short cutting the fiction to just say "hey wizard. That guy over there, he's got an aspect for shooting wildly, here's a FP because of his aspect which I haven't really established as relevant yet, this is especially so, if the shooter is a PC, but even with an NPC, I'd follow a show don't tell philosophy and establish the wild gunfire in the fiction, then have its impact felt. I think the experience is actually enhanced by doing it that way.

More on this later.

[UmbraLux]

Essentially, this little tidbit here is the point of contention.
Some of us believe there should be such an aspect.  Some of us apparently believe that the wizard's own aspect reflecting their heightened emotional state is sufficient in itself.

Is there a difference? 

If you don't want to use the wizard's high concept you can simply declare A Wizard is Near by spending a fate and immediately tag it for the same effect.  Declarations don't take an action and fate points get transferred the same as in noclue's description.  I don't see a meaningful difference.

As long as the aspect is relevant it can be used.  If you really want to do so, you can go through the mechanics of making a related declaration first...but I don't really see a need.  The real test is whether or not it's relevant. 

[Mr. Death]

Like, if one character is shooting and has the aspect "wild uncontrollable bursts" I can definitely compel him to have his shots go all over the place, and then I can turn to the wizard and say "there are shots all over the place, give me a dodge roll at a difficulty of 4." I don't have t compel the wizard at all in that case. I can alternatively compel the shooter and place a scene aspect "errant gunfire!" Now, as long as the shooting is still going on, I can compel folks. What I don't like is short cutting the fiction to just say "hey wizard. That guy over there, he's got an aspect for shooting wildly, here's a FP because of his aspect which I haven't really established as relevant yet, this is especially so, if the shooter is a PC, but even with an NPC, I'd follow a show don't tell philosophy and establish the wild gunfire in the fiction, then have its impact felt. I think the experience is actually enhanced by doing it that way.

More on this later.

I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I'm talking about. It seems to be just an outline of a particularly lazy GM not bothering to describe things, which isn't what I'm talking about.