Spell for Critique: Stone Bridge

[Drachasor]

The easiest way to visualize how the Consequence Aspect works is a brutal melee fight. You do X-shifts of damage to an opponent, and they take the Consequence "Broken Arm" - the next time you act, you can:
a) free tag that "Broken Arm" Aspect for a +2 to an Intimidation check because they are wounded and easier to cow
b) free tag that "Broken Arm" Aspect for a +2 to another attack as you target the weak arm
c) Invoke for Effect/Compel the "Broken Arm" aspect and say "My opponent's arm is broken - he's not sure he wants to fight me anymore, so he surrenders and agrees to tell me what he knows" - if the GM accepts, you hand him a Fate Point and he gives it to the NPC, who may or may not get to use it in a later conflict with you

This makes me curious, as a GM do you ever automatically compel aspects on the NPCs or do you just do it for PCs?  If there are Huge Gusts of Wind on a scene, you might compel a PC to fall over...seems almost unfair that's not done with the NPCs.  Or, in your view, is it the job of the PCs to handle that side of things by spending fate points?  (I suppose the latter is the most consistent and makes the most sense in terms of game mechanics).

[devonapple]

Aside from the "free tag" issue, the Aurora Bridge + Bridging the Gap was a good one-two approach to the spell, and if someone needed to pull some shifts together, setting up Maneuvers is a good way to "charge up" the effect.

[devonapple]

This makes me curious, as a GM do you ever automatically compel aspects on the NPCs or do you just do it for PCs?  If there are Huge Gusts of Wind on a scene, you might compel a PC to fall over...seems almost unfair that's not done with the NPCs.  Or, in your view, is it the job of the PCs to handle that side of things by spending fate points?  (I suppose the latter is the most consistent and makes the most sense in terms of game mechanics).

Exactly: per YS 99:
"Scene Compels
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."

[jybil178]

I think I like it as an X-shift Evocation where X is the Zone Border, with a 2-shift premium to make it a "Zone-wide" effect (even though the Zone is just a point along a Zone Border), plus extra shifts for Duration - that reflects the spellcaster having to give it energy. I think calling it a Block on the Zone Border is an elegant way to justify the spell effect.

Alright then.  Sounds good, hehe...

This is a postmortem discussion - this already happened in game, as I had originally described, and I was looking for community feedback on how I handled it. It seemed like a challenge to stat properly.

Sorry about that... >.<  Can't believe I missed that.

You would want four shifts to make the Aspect Sticky - then it would last the scene without needing extra duration.

Example: Evan Montrose wants to make an
impression on some local practitioners who are
getting a bit out of hand. When he goes to meet
them, he decides to whip up some special effects
to make sure they know he means business.
When he confronts them, he performs a
wind evocation as a maneuver to send strong
gusts of wind through the area to blow things
around and keep people off balance. This is
a maneuver on the scene, so the GM decides
he needs the basic 3 shifts of power to pull it
off. Evan decides to bring 6 shifts of power to
make the winds last for an additional three
exchanges, figuring he can use the distraction to
his advantage if things get dicey.
He succeeds at performing the spell, and the
GM places an aspect of Hideously Strong
Winds on the scene.

This is along the lines of what I was basing the idea off of.. I honestly forgot about the sticky aspect, but now that I think about it, I kinda find it weird that a lot of examples forget to use already mentioned points...  Ahh well..  I'm guessing Mr. Montrose then could only Invoke his "Hideously Strong Winds" once, then the effect would disappear?

And this is where the confusion is. You can "Invoke" for a free re-roll or a +2 to a roll. And you can get that for free using the "free tag" rule for creating or discovering a new Aspect.

Yeah, thats an annoying part..  Basically, when I first looked over the section, I tried to think of tagging and invoking as two entirely different actions, to try to help me remember them.  Invoking costs a fate point, Tagging doesn't, but it needs to be an Aspect that was put onto the field somehow.  I just need to think more along the lines that tagging is basically just a special way to invoke, and not an entirely different action...

You can "Invoke for Effect" as well, but it is going to cost a Fate Point no matter what. Any time you are using an Aspect to make something happen without a die roll, a Fate Point has to change hands.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on an NPC's Aspect, it is equal to a Compel, and they get a Fate Point from you.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on a Scene Aspect - even one you created - you give the GM a Fate Point.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on one of your own Aspects, you give the GM a Fate Point.

Sorry for arguing this point...  Its probably been overdone >.<  I just thing that the particular wording in question was done poorly enough to be called into question...

pg. 106,
Whenever you make a roll to gain access
to or create an aspect, as per the list on page 105,
you may invoke it one time, and one time only, for
free

I'm guessing its the fact that "invoking an aspect" and "invoking an aspect for effect" are considered separate enough actions, that the ability to tag an aspect described on 106 doesn't apply to it?  Or am I missing something else in the rules?

And thanks for the rundown on the consequence aspects, hehe... I think I get it a lot better now.

[devonapple]

I am wrong on the Internet! Official Word of Fred is that, yes, a "free tag" can be used to Invoke for Effect." My sincere apologies for being so stubbornly wrong. Mea culpa.