Tagging mental consequences

[Taran]

So it's standard fair to tag an opponents "gunshot wound" after he's been hit with a bullet because it's pretty obvious that he's been wounded, but how about less obvious consequences?

In the game I'm running, the wizard decided to start hitting goblin enemies with mental attacks since they can't really defend well against such attacks.  So he spent his turns making the goblins "scared, panicked, terrified etc.."

I basically ruled that, for the other PC's to tag these consequences, some kind of assessments would have to be made; empathy being the most obvious one.  The wizard could also point out the consequences to his allies to make it easier.  Obviously some mental consequences would be easier to notice than others but, in general, mental consequences were less obvious and not automatically taggable.

There was a bit of resitance to this ruling.  Do you think it's fair?  I'm kind of going by RAW on pg. 106,

"This (passing the tag to an ally) can only be done, however, if it is reasonable that the advantage could be passed off."

                 *********************************************

On a side note, it seems pretty easy for a wizard to switch to mental attacks against non-mortal enemies when it is most advantageous.  Has anyone run into situations/games where it has become problematic? 

[UmbraLux]

I don't think I'd give golems enough of a mind to be attacked.  That said...

I basically ruled that, for the other PC's to tag these consequences, some kind of assessments would have to be made; empathy being the most obvious one.  The wizard could also point out the consequences to his allies to make it easier.  Obviously some mental consequences would be easier to notice than others but, in general, mental consequences were less obvious and not automatically taggable.

There was a bit of resitance to this ruling.  Do you think it's fair?  I'm kind of going by RAW on pg. 106,

"This (passing the tag to an ally) can only be done, however, if it is reasonable that the advantage could be passed off."

The wizard points at a golem and yells "Attack that one, it's Dazed!"

Tag passed.  Yeah, I figure you're being stricter than I'd rule.  Except I'd have said golems are mindless constructs who just follow orders, your Mental Maze spell was completely ineffective. 

[Sanctaphrax]

You don't need to be aware of an aspect to tag it, if I recall correctly.

It's a player action, not a character action.

And the dazed-ness of a goblin should be very helpful to anyone attacking it, even if they don't know it's dazed.

So I'd let the tags pass freely.

But I wouldn't allow mental attacks with non-Sponsored magic to begin with. Too powerful and too unpleasant for the guy with Toughness.

[Taran]

@UmbraLux:  GOBLINS not Gollums.

@ Sanctaphrax:  Isn't mind magic basically spirit evocation?  It's been a bit of a bone of contention for me.  I don't like mental attacks, but I don't see how to justify it to the player(s).

[TheMouse]

I don't like mental attacks, but I don't see how to justify it to the player(s).

Fourth Law violations are going to be very common among the possible pool of mental attacks. So your players need to be really careful whom they target, unless they like Lawbreaker Stunts.

[UmbraLux]

@UmbraLux:  GOBLINS not Gollums.

Oops!    That's what I get for posting this late...

I'd still go with the easy tags.  You can always increase the number of goblins if needed but, more importantly, wizards have a finite number of spells they can cast in a given combat scene.  If they use them up taking out minor opponents they may have to reach deep to cast when it's really important.  

Next time he casts a spell to take on a few minor opponents, just look at him, grin, and ask "Do you really want to do that now?"  Then bring on the Scro!  (Or at least the tougher opponents.)

[Sanctaphrax]

I really don't want to go over the mental attack evocation debate again, so I'll just bombard you with semi-relevant links.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.15.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22351.30.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18420.0.html

[braincraft]

Technically, the character who created the aspect is the one free-tagging it, so the person benefiting doesn't even have to be aware that they're getting a bonus.

[Taran]

This is why I was making the PC's do assessments (ignore law-breaking and focus on tags):

Scenario 1

Joe at the bar just got dumped by his over-bearing, soul-sucking girl friend.  He now has the consequence "feelings of inadequecy".
The PC's come in and start smashing the place up.  For the PC's to take advantage of Joe's consequence, they have to assess it.

Scenario 2

Joe is sitting at the bar when the PC's come in and start smashing the place up.  The PC wizard hits Joe with a psychic blast giving him "feelings of inadequecy".

Why, in scenario 2, do the other PC's get a free tag without an assessment when in scenario 1 they need to assess?

[DFJunkie]

Joe is sitting at the bar when the PC's come in and start smashing the place up.  The PC wizard hits Joe with a psychic blast giving him "feelings of inadequecy".

Tags represent narrative power on a metagame level, and are the province of players rather than characters.  It is earned when a player reveals or creates an aspect regardless of character knowledge.

[braincraft]

Why, in scenario 2, do the other PC's get a free tag without an assessment when in scenario 1 they need to assess?

You get a free tag for making a successful roll. It doesn't matter whether it's a maneuver or assessment or declaration. The mechanics aren't simulating a world in which things happen because of physics, it simulates a narrative in which things are relevant because you pay attention to them.

[Taran]

O.k...

I'll take that and run with it.  My players will be happy I've changed my tune

Thanks all for the clarification

[EldritchFire]

This is why I was making the PC's do assessments (ignore law-breaking and focus on tags):

Scenario 1

Joe at the bar just got dumped by his over-bearing, soul-sucking girl friend.  He now has the consequence "feelings of inadequecy".
The PC's come in and start smashing the place up.  For the PC's to take advantage of Joe's consequence, they have to assess it.

Scenario 2

Joe is sitting at the bar when the PC's come in and start smashing the place up.  The PC wizard hits Joe with a psychic blast giving him "feelings of inadequecy".

Why, in scenario 2, do the other PC's get a free tag without an assessment when in scenario 1 they need to assess?

Without the assessment in #1, there was no dice roll involved. Free tags come out of rolling for them. Remember, you can gamble, and spend a Fate Point on an aspect you think the target has (YS113). If you want it for free, you need to roll for it.

Rolling for the free tag is iffy because they can roll to resist. If they have feeling of inadequacy, but your empathy is only +1, it might make more sense to spend the FP instead of rolling. If you spend the FP and invoke/compel, you know they have the aspect--or something similar. If you are handed the FP back, you know you were wrong.

Just my [-2].

-EF