Yes, A Free Tag Can Invoke For Effect

[sjksprocket]

That will just encourage players to place aspects on each other and avoid ever doing it on enemies.  Same net effect, pretty much, but they don't have to give the enemy a Fate point.  Remember that to tag you have to use an action to place the Aspect (typically), and that's not a trivial sacrifice.

For me I look at it from the series point of view. During the escalation to the final confrontation Harry is constantly being beat on (and starts gain fate points from the all the consequences and compels he's getting) and then goes uber and wins (dumping a lot of the faint points he just gained to win). The gaining a fate point even if tagged, for me anyways, is more in sync with that. Plus it would depend on the group. I don't believe my group would abuse it like you think.

Which is for all intents and purpose a tag being used for a Compel (GM taking or supplying a Fate Point to the target as needed).

Yes and No. It is partially semantics, like you say, but it would limit things to a certain degree too. A compel coming straight from the PC could have a much wider ranges of effects, or be much harsher. The compel from the GM would IMO be in a narrower frame of things seeing as the GM would only do the compel if they see it as appropriate and apply a potentially more subtle effect. Plus, as I see it, it also effects if the effected party will get the fate point. If your going with "no fate paint spent, none gained" then the effected party would not get the point from the Invoke for effect, but since the GM initiated the compel the target would get one from the compel.

I mean no offense, and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you're coming from the perspective that this is a big loophole and could be exploited. I see it as what would be a better story, and what would everyone enjoy better. If that means that A tag could be essentially be used as a compel, I'd go with it. But I still retain all my rights to say to a player "Okay, now your abusing it."

[infusco]

Can you get a free tag mild concequences i thought to get any use of them you had to spend a fate point, I thought it was only extreme you got a free tag of.

All Consequences can be free tagged. The only thing that makes Extreme ones more noticeable is that they force you to create an *additional* Aspect which replaces one of your existing phase Aspects for as long as that Consequence remains.

[bitterpill]

Nice that makes my fighter considerably stronger than I thought he was as long as hit the first time I can tag the concequences to hit the second thanks for inform.

[infusco]

The initiator of ANY Invoke or Compel that targets another does not get a Fate point if a Fate point is payed off to ignore it. It's pretty clear from the line I quoted.

I'm not concerned in the sense that I see every player as a dangerous twink in the making (although we have all dealt with those in the past, no doubt). What I am implying is that every victim of a *freshly created negative Aspect* should not be rewarded for the initial Tag used to take advantage of it. It's, in my opinion, quite explicit on page 106. Be careful to stay within the spirit of the rules and not try to find a loophole in the semantics to justify circumventing that.

1) Fred stated that a Tag could be used for an Invoke for Effect leading to a Compel.
2) The section on Tagging states that no Fate point is rewarded for Tagging to a character's detriment.
3) Ergo, Tagging on an Invoke for Effect that leads to a Compel does not reward a Fate point to it's victim.

As for the Harry comparison, most of the bad stuff that tends to happen to Harry is mostly due to Compels on existing Aspects, such as the fact that he is headstrong and has a tendency of sticking his foot in his mouth. Also, even when a Consequence becomes an issue for him, it's compelled so frequently, that he surely gets fate points from the 2nd instance onwards.

[ScottMcG]

I believe that what's makes YS106 not specifically relevant to this example is that the tag allows the free invoke-for-effect, and the effect you are creating is a compel.  No fate point is given or received as the result of invoke-for-effect. And at this point the invoke-for-effect is complete and resolved (see the "Full Stop" part of the sequence example).  The triggered compel (involving only the GM and the target of the compel) is now running independently of the tag *and* the initiator.  Therefore, the compel is not obviously subject to the verbiage on YS106.

For the record, I don't necessarily think you're conclusion is wrong (you may be spot on), I just don't think YS106 leads us obviously to that conclusion.

The initiator of ANY Invoke or Compel that targets another does not get a Fate point if a Fate point is payed off to ignore it. It's pretty clear from the line I quoted.

I'm not concerned in the sense that I see every player as a dangerous twink in the making (although we have all dealt with those in the past, no doubt). What I am implying is that every victim of a *freshly created negative Aspect* should not be rewarded for the initial Tag used to take advantage of it. It's, in my opinion, quite explicit on page 106. Be careful to stay within the spirit of the rules and not try to find a loophole in the semantics to justify circumventing that.

1) Fred stated that a Tag could be used for an Invoke for Effect leading to a Compel.
2) The section on Tagging states that no Fate point is rewarded for Tagging to a character's detriment.
3) Ergo, Tagging on an Invoke for Effect that leads to a Compel does not reward a Fate point to it's victim.

As for the Harry comparison, most of the bad stuff that tends to happen to Harry is mostly due to Compels on existing Aspects, such as the fact that he is headstrong and has a tendency of sticking his foot in his mouth. Also, even when a Consequence becomes an issue for him, it's compelled so frequently, that he surely gets fate points from the 2nd instance onwards.

[Drachasor]

For me I look at it from the series point of view. During the escalation to the final confrontation Harry is constantly being beat on (and starts gain fate points from the all the consequences and compels he's getting) and then goes uber and wins (dumping a lot of the faint points he just gained to win). The gaining a fate point even if tagged, for me anyways, is more in sync with that. Plus it would depend on the group. I don't believe my group would abuse it like you think.

I mean that players will naturally do things to avoid giving the enemy an advantage.  Making tagged Invokes give a Fate Point like Tagged Compels will mean players will avoid doing tagged invokes.  You've made those tagged invokes more expensive to do...it's simple economics.  So I think the net result is it will be that it makes the game LESS fun, because there will be a lot fewer aspects placed on enemies.  It's not about abuse..placing Aspects on allies isn't abuse.  This just makes aspects on allies a lot cheaper, hence encouraging their placement over aspects on enemies (which is already discouraged by the more significant resistance an enemy can potentially give).

You'll still have lots of stuff happening at the end as people spend fate points they've accumulated, use tags, and invoke aspects that have already been tagged.

Compels that come from an Invoke for Effect are different, of course, since a Compel immediately puts the opponent at a non-trivial disadvantage.  That certainly is deserving of a Fate Point as per normal compel rules.

Yes and No. It is partially semantics, like you say, but it would limit things to a certain degree too. A compel coming straight from the PC could have a much wider ranges of effects, or be much harsher. The compel from the GM would IMO be in a narrower frame of things seeing as the GM would only do the compel if they see it as appropriate and apply a potentially more subtle effect. Plus, as I see it, it also effects if the effected party will get the fate point. If your going with "no fate paint spent, none gained" then the effected party would not get the point from the Invoke for effect, but since the GM initiated the compel the target would get one from the compel.

I mean no offense, and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you're coming from the perspective that this is a big loophole and could be exploited. I see it as what would be a better story, and what would everyone enjoy better. If that means that A tag could be essentially be used as a compel, I'd go with it. But I still retain all my rights to say to a player "Okay, now your abusing it."

As for this conversation overall regarding how to word things about tagging, I am coming from a purely pedantic standpoint.  I am just trying to figure out the clearest way to word all of this (because the book certainly doesn't do it).  Is it best to have Invoke For Effect have a nested Compel as an option, or just to explicitly state that one can Compel with a tag?  Generally I think avoided nested stuff is less complicated, and mathematically speaking this is certainly so if you would just have 3 options (long story).

Beyond that, I don't see how the player doing the compel without needing a Fate Point is different from the GM here.  What can be compelled in either case is very dependent on the Aspect in question.  I don't see how an Invoke For Effect limits the nature of possible compels at all...anything that can be compelled is arguably something that can be Invoked For Effect (which would cause the compel), as best I see it.  Is there something I am missing here?

[sjksprocket]

I mean that players will naturally do things to avoid giving the enemy an advantage.  Making tagged Invokes give a Fate Point like Tagged Compels will mean players will avoid doing tagged invokes.  You've made those tagged invokes more expensive to do...it's simple economics.  So I think the net result is it will be that it makes the game LESS fun, because there will be a lot fewer aspects placed on enemies.  It's not about abuse..placing Aspects on allies isn't abuse.  This just makes aspects on allies a lot cheaper, hence encouraging their placement over aspects on enemies (which is already discouraged by the more significant resistance an enemy can potentially give).

I don't see how you are getting here. Are you talking about tagging IFB (Invoke for bonus) or IFE (Invoke for effect)? If you tag a IFB then the tagged shouldn't get a fate point. I feel that a IFE, being narrative control, should have a fate point given to the tagged, but that's just me personally, even though I know that the RAW might disagree with me. I see it as IFE giving narrative control. If someone is taking NC over someone then that person should get something in return. But most likely I would just use a tagged IFE to lead to a compel to give a fate point, which seems to be okay.

Compels that come from an Invoke for Effect are different, of course, since a Compel immediately puts the opponent at a non-trivial disadvantage.  That certainly is deserving of a Fate Point as per normal compel rules.

As for this conversation overall regarding how to word things about tagging, I am coming from a purely pedantic standpoint.  I am just trying to figure out the clearest way to word all of this (because the book certainly doesn't do it).  Is it best to have Invoke For Effect have a nested Compel as an option, or just to explicitly state that one can Compel with a tag?  Generally I think avoided nested stuff is less complicated, and mathematically speaking this is certainly so if you would just have 3 options (long story).

Beyond that, I don't see how the player doing the compel without needing a Fate Point is different from the GM here.  What can be compelled in either case is very dependent on the Aspect in question.  I don't see how an Invoke For Effect limits the nature of possible compels at all...anything that can be compelled is arguably something that can be Invoked For Effect (which would cause the compel), as best I see it.  Is there something I am missing here?

I agree with ScottMcG about that ruling. The RAW is does have some funny circuitous wording. The difference I can tell is that according to RAW you can not tag a compel, a tagged IFE would not give a fate point, but a tagged IFE that leads to a GM compel would get the fate point. I know it is a very round about way of doing things, and if you want to limit this and come up with a simpler way of doing things, I think you might even get encouraged to do so seeing that Fate in general is all about Moding for your own purposes. What ever makes it easier for you.

The difference I see is that a player is more likely to try to go overboard with a compel, or at least try to get the most out of it. Where as the GM might want to try to fit it in the story better. I see it as a GM having more control over their npcs. That's one thought anyways. It really comes down to how you campaign and your group runs. You might want to leave these things, like IFE leading to a compel during battle, up to your players.

[infusco]

The difference I see is that a player is more likely to try to go overboard with a compel, or at least try to get the most out of it. Where as the GM might want to try to fit it in the story better. I see it as a GM having more control over their npcs. That's one thought anyways. It really comes down to how you campaign and your group runs. You might want to leave these things, like IFE leading to a compel during battle, up to your players.

Remember that the moment a Compel is involved, it becomes a negotiation process. A GM will listen to your description of the Effect/Compel and either accepts the chain of events as you describe, or refuse it and ask you to describe it differently. Anything leading to a Compel, regardless of whether or not a Fate point is awarded to the victim or not, involves GM Fiat. Merely tagging or invoking an Aspect for a bonus or reroll is straight forward and almost always accepted as long as the Aspect is relevant.