Fate Points from Invoking Other Aspects

[Bernd]

I’m a bit unclear on when Fate Points change hands after invoking other aspects. I’m specifically not talking about tagging, since there are no FPs involved. I’m also not talking about compelling. Some situations seem to be pretty clear, let’s assume Alice and Bert are the characters:

1) If Alice invokes a character aspect of Bert to his disadvantage, Bert gets the FP Alice has spent. That’s happening in the example on p. 106, under “Invoking Other Aspects”.

2) If Alice creates a scene aspect on the scene (and not on Bert) and Bert invokes this scene aspect to Alice’s disadvantage, Alice gets the FP Bert has spent. That’s happening in the example on p. 106-7, under “Tagging”.

These examples are easy, because in both cases, the aspects in question are owned by the ones that are disadvantaged. In the first case, it’s Bert’s aspect and Bert gets a FP, in the second case, it’s Alice’s aspect and Alice gets a FP.


What about other scene aspects? Another example:

3) Alice places the aspect *Grappled on Bert. When Alice invokes that aspect to Bert’s detriment, does Bert get the FP?

4) Alice places the aspect *Grappled on Bert. When Bert invokes that aspect to Alices detriment, does Alice get the FP?

These examples aren’t as clear, since Alice might be the owner of that aspect, but the aspect is on Bert.


What about scene aspects, that are neither? Let’s say Clive enters the scene:

5) Clive creates the aspect *The Room is on Fire on the scene. Alice invokes that aspects to Bert’s detriment. Does Bert get the FP?


I tried the forum search, but it’s rubbish. I haven’t found anything about that. Sorry if this has been discussed before.

One last thing: I know how this is handled in Fate Core and I know that I could handle it just the same in DFRPG, but I’m interested in how the DFRPG is supposed to work. The example on p. 106-7 seems to contradict the way FC handles this.

Thanks a lot!

[Taran]

When an aspect is invoked, regardless of who created it, the one who invoked it is telling the GM that they want that aspect to complicate the target.  The GM compels the target of the invokation.  The target can pay a FP To turn Down the compel or accept the compel and earn a FP.

[Bernd]

Maybe I’m missing something here, but aren’t you just describing an Invokation for Effect in order to initiate a Compel? That is something different from what I’m asking about. I’m asking about simple invokations (+2 or reroll), no compelling involved.

[Sanctaphrax]

In my experience, what actually happens is that nobody invokes their enemies' Aspects with FP, because giving ammo to people who want you dead is stupid. Not sure I've ever seen a Fate Point transferred that way in all my time playing this game.

So I'm not completely sure how it's meant to work.  Still, I'll try to answer.

1) If Alice invokes a character aspect of Bert to his disadvantage, Bert gets the FP Alice has spent. That’s happening in the example on p. 106, under “Invoking Other Aspects”.

Yep.

2) If Alice creates a scene aspect on the scene (and not on Bert) and Bert invokes this scene aspect to Alice’s disadvantage, Alice gets the FP Bert has spent. That’s happening in the example on p. 106-7, under “Tagging”.

Actually, I think the example is wrong. Wouldn't be the only one.

The rules say there's a transfer if the Aspect is on the victim of the invoke. They don't say anything about transfers for scene Aspects.

These examples are easy, because in both cases, the aspects in question are owned by the ones that are disadvantaged. In the first case, it’s Bert’s aspect and Bert gets a FP, in the second case, it’s Alice’s aspect and Alice gets a FP.

As far as I can tell, "ownership" is irrelevant.

3) Alice places the aspect *Grappled on Bert. When Alice invokes that aspect to Bert’s detriment, does Bert get the FP?

Sure.

4) Alice places the aspect *Grappled on Bert. When Bert invokes that aspect to Alices detriment, does Alice get the FP?

I don't think so.

5) Clive creates the aspect *The Room is on Fire on the scene. Alice invokes that aspects to Bert’s detriment. Does Bert get the FP?

No.

One last thing: I know how this is handled in Fate Core and I know that I could handle it just the same in DFRPG, but I’m interested in how the DFRPG is supposed to work. The example on p. 106-7 seems to contradict the way FC handles this.

If you like the way FC does it, I suggest you stick with that. Won't break anything.

[Bernd]

I just found a blog post by Ryan Macklin, in which he describes how the Fate Core rules are supposed to work and how he mistakenly thought they work. In there he links to a discussion on G+, in which he then confirms that the rules of Fate Core and Dresden actually are supposed to work the same.*

For those who don’t know, “hostile invocation” is the post-publication term a bunch of us at Fate HQ use to describe when you’re invoking an aspect that someone else owns or is in control off against that owner. That’s the gist of “Having Your Aspects Invoked Against You” on p. 81, but considers situational aspects you’ve created and currently control, not just your character aspects. Making On Fire isn’t generally something you control after you make it, so it generally doesn’t count as a hostile invocation.

That's still about aspect ownership. "An aspect on another PC or on a NPC" means that person's aspect—it's the same as the Core line.

He does talk about ownership and control of the aspects. You get a FP when someone uses an aspect you own or control against you. Assuming I understood him correctly, for my examples this would mean this:

1) Works as I described.

2) Works only if Alice does in fact control the aspect.

3) No, Bert would not get a FP because Alice does control the aspect.

4) Yes, Alice would get a FP because she controls the aspect.

5) Nobody would get any FPs because nobody owns or controls that aspect.

This would also mean that the example of the Shadowman on p. 106-7 is correct. He gets a FP because the Shadowman controls the aspect Harry uses against him.


* The difference being that in FC, only players get FPs due to invocations against their characters, not the GM. That has something to do with the GM having a FP Pool in FC.

[Sanctaphrax]

Huh.

To be honest, I can't really see a way to reconcile those comments with what's actually written in the book.

[Bernd]

I guess it all comes down to how you understand what “an aspect on another PC or NPC” (DFRPG) or “an aspect attached to your character”  (Fate Core) means. I thought that I understood the rule of Fate Core, but I was mistaken there, too, if we follow Ryan Macklin’s reading of the rules. I understood it as the target of an aspect, rather than who controls it. Hence my confusion with the example on p. 106-7.

FC really doesn’t explain it better than Dresden, I think.

But I think I actually like Ryan Macklin’s interpretation (can I say that, when he’s one of the authors?). It circumvents the problem you described some posts ago. Now the character’s can create aspects on their adversaries without giving them FPs.

[Tedronai]

I think this qualifies more as an 'intention' than an 'interpretation'.  It pretty clearly isn't what was actually written, and as you say, the writer admits to not having properly understood what actually made it into the book.

Effectively, then, this becomes little more than a Houserule Endorsed by the Writer.