ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: JesterPoet on February 10, 2012, 04:57:39 PM
-
I have run Dresden WAY too many times to have this question, but such is life with learning to run/play a new RPG, right?
I have a question with regard to aspects. Let's say that Larry the Demon (NPC) maneuvers with INCITE EMOTION (p. 173) to enrage Mary the Knight of the Cross (PC) into attacking him. Perhaps the aspect is something like "Must destroy the spawn of Satan (Larry)." Mechanically, when it comes to Mary's turn, she is under no obligation to attack him, right? I mean, technically she can just run from the room and head for the car. What do you all do? Do you have unwritten rules that Mary should roleplay the aspect and stay? What if the aspect were something from evocation like "Bound with Air." Again, I can see how tagging it on the enemy's next turn would give bonuses and such, but if you've bound the character (PC or NPC) with the intention of keeping him from moving, how does that work?
If there are rules that address this that I'm missing (which there probably are) it'd be awesome (but not necessary) for you to point me to them just so I can show my players too.
I feel dumb, but wow... it's a lot of rules. I think I've done well to this point :D
-
Larry the Demon puts "Must destroy the spawn of Satan" on Mary. Larry then uses the tag to set initiate a compel. The GM and Mary's player then discuss the compel; Mary accepts, gets a fate point, and flies into a holy rage (or rejects and pays the FP, etc.)
That is how I would set it up.
-
The Demon should get a free tag/invoke on that Aspect, which can either give it a +2 on something related to that Aspect, or it can be Invoked for Effect. 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).
If that Invoke for Effect is stronger, it becomes like a Compel, and you the GM can give the player a Fate Point for it (and the player, likewise, can refuse it with a Fate Point). The Fate Point doesn't come out of the Demon's supply (if any), nor does the Demon get the player's buyout Fate Point.
This particular bit was painstakingly researched by consulting the game writers, and it is not obvious from the RAW.
-
The Demon should get a free tag/invoke on that Aspect, which can either give it a +2 on something related to that Aspect, or it can be Invoked for Effect. 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).
If that Invoke for Effect is stronger, it becomes like a Compel, and you the GM can give the player a Fate Point for it (and the player, likewise, can refuse it with a Fate Point). The Fate Point doesn't come out of the Demon's supply (if any), nor does the Demon get the player's buyout Fate Point.
This particular bit was painstakingly researched by consulting the game writers, and it is not obvious from the RAW.
Wow... that's hugely helpful! Thanks!
Now another question: Does that tag (whether it is simple effect or a stronger compel) happen immediately, or does it not happen until the demon's next initiative?
-
Now another question: Does that tag (whether it is simple effect or a stronger compel) happen immediately, or does it not happen until the demon's next initiative?
There is some debate. Per the RAW, I feel that one can Invoke for Effect immediately (as in lay the Maneuver, place the Aspect, tag/invoke for effect, on the same Exchange - Disarmed is a good example of when this would work), but one would perforce have to wait until one's next Action to get a +2 on it (for an Aspect like On the Ropes, or Punch Drunk) the Aspect doesn't suddenly give you another attack, unless you have negotiated that with the GM.
Others feel that to be balanced, Invoking for Effect (a metagame effect) is something a character must do on their next available Action (a game effect).
-
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).
Is there RAW support for that devonapple? I ask because I do not recall reading as much.
(and more specifically, I would contest the idea that 'defense rolled as 0' would be 'something minor' - it's certainly far more potent than the standard +2)
-
I was always under the impression that the only difference between a Tag and an Invoke was that no fate points were spent or received.
-
Is there RAW support for that devonapple? I ask because I do not recall reading as much.
(and more specifically, I would contest the idea that 'defense rolled as 0' would be 'something minor' - it's certainly far more potent than the standard +2)
No RAW, just conversations with the game writers which have been chronicled on the boards.
The trend is that a momentary inconvenience (no defense for an Exchange, no attack for an Exchange) is within an standard Invoke for Effect, but that something which seriously constrains the characters choice or options in a conflict is grounds for an Invoke-for-Effect which triggers a Compel between the GM and the target.
-
I was always under the impression that the only difference between a Tag and an Invoke was that no fate points were spent or received.
We ground that discussion out at length many months ago.
I suspect that the recent server crash seems to have wiped out the logs which the Search engine used to catalog the posts, so I'm now understanding why a lot of these questions are coming up again: new users just aren't finding the extant posts on the subject.
So that discussion will take awhile to find, but it is somewhere in the previous entries, and maybe someone else will find it before I get a chance to!
-
Long story short, you're pretty much right, but if the tag triggers a compel then the compel is negotiated between the GM and the target and the GM funds the compel.
-
As far as I know there are no actual rules for what an Invoke For Effect can do. It's pure fiat. So if you don't think that fumbling a weapon or whatever is a worthy compel, then it doesn't have to be a compel.
I think.
Personally I think that you can tag whenever, even if it's not your turn.
-
I try to go back to running players and NPCs using similar mechanics.
If you're a player, and you land this cool Aspect using a Maneuver (Disarmed! Woo, the giant Troll is Disarmed!) and it makes sense for you to expect to be able to Invoke for Effect to give the Aspect more than just a +2 to something, without having to spend a Fate Point for it, then an NPC should be able to do the same.
Likewise, if an NPC uses an Invoke for Effect on an Aspect landed on a player, and that player feels like it's more than just a momentary disadvantage, that it is a Compel meriting a Fate point, then perforce, any similar actions by a player against an NPC should be resolved similarly.
If the player wants it easier for the player, then that is a different negotiating stance.
-
The Demon should get a free tag/invoke on that Aspect, which can either give it a +2 on something related to that Aspect, or it can be Invoked for Effect. 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).
Personal opinion: If it costs a fate point to say no, the player should be offered one to say yes.
-
This has been really helpful! Thanks to everyone who commented! (and I'll keep reading, but this gets me back on track for tomorrow night).
-
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?
-
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.
-
Personal opinion: If it costs a fate point to say no, the player should be offered one to say yes.
This.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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. :)
-
- 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.
-
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.
-
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. :-[
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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". ;)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26459.msg1126835.html#msg1126835) (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.
-
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.