Purview of Evocation

[Troy]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I'm also in agreement with Wordmaker. When I'm reading over those dubious examples of spells in the book, I'm thinking: Well, wait a second. Entanglement looks like a grapple/block and Orbius looks like an attack.

I think its the case of the manifestation of a spell (Special FX) vs the mechanical function (game terms) of a spell.

It's one of the reasons I tend to prefer the updated Fate Core interpretation of game actions because it seems a little less confusing and it flows a bit smoother. Create Advantage covers Maneuvers and Blocks in that some Maneuvers are Blocks and must be Overcome. Is that a better way to interpret how things should work or is it better to stick with the Attack/Block/Maneuver/Defend (Counterspell) type thing that Dresden Files uses?

[Taran]

I'd argue that BOUND IN PLACE is a bad aspect. Remember that this is an RPG that loosely models the setting of the books; the fiction is not to be taken as examples of how the mechanics of the RPG works. In DFRPG, aspects can be invoked for +2s, rerolls or the nebulous "for effect", but in the scope of a conflict, what you descriptively title the aspect should be in line with the framework of actions that can be taken in combat. If you want to make someone unable to leave their zone, that's a block on their movement, so you should be doing a block action, not a maneuver. Similarly, you're not allowed to use Shooting and a gun to place the aspect DEAD on people as a maneuver and deny them all future actions; you've got to make attack actions, inflict stress and take them out.

Well look at the targets of those actions. Placing ON FIRE onto the scenery as a maneuver is fine. The scenery isn't an active participant in the conflict, and the Fate system isn't about modeling the effects of arson. Note that you can't place ON FIRE on a participant in the conflict and then demand that it do stress to them in ongoing turns; if you want to pile stress on a combatant, you have to make attack actions. MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is also against the scenery, so again that's probably fine (though probably only if you can 'take out' the wall with attacks that deal physical stress or something).

BOUND IN PLACE on a person though seems like that steps over the line since you're using a maneuver to place an aspect that's best represented by another action type in the conflict. Versus other characters, that's an important distinction. If you want to toss an aspect so you can tag it on a future roll, then your description for what happens should be less definitive and less specific like COVERED IN GOO or IN HIS OWN PERSONAL HURRICANE or whatever. If your goal is to prevent action, then that's a block and you don't even need to come up with a spiffy aspect name for it. But doing both with one action is a no-no. It breaks the action economy and there's nothing in the magic chapter that says you can cheat the system and get more than one effect a turn.

As an aside, I don't think I'd allow a block spell that completely jammed up another character for more than a round, since again that breaks action economy in a big way. At least you'd have to pay for it with shifts of power instead of just stacking offensive control bonuses though, so that's probably less obnoxious.

I agree with all this.  A block is a better way to stop movement.  I was just addressing the BOUND IN PLACE maneuver.

A block over multiple rounds isn't so bad, especially considering the shifts put into extra round decrease the power of the block.  Add also that once the block is beaten, it goes away.