Yes, A Free Tag Can Invoke For Effect

[iago]

A tag is a free invoke.

A tag therefore can do anything an invoke can.

An invoke can invoke for effect.

An invoke for effect can target an aspect other than one directly possessed by the invoker.

An invoke for effect targeting an external aspect found on another character can thereby trigger a compel as the effect it's being "for effect" invoked.

Full stop: all invoking actions at this point have concluded.

Since a compel has been triggered, however, the compel machinery remains in motion.

Compels are negotiated and run between the GM and the target.

It resolves however it resolves.

Sometimes the target accepts it.

Sometimes the target rejects it.

Sometimes the target and GM determine, y'know what? This is weak sauce and doesnt count and the compel doesn't carry through.

This is the last I'm saying on the topic -- I've had like five different people email me about this over the last week and would've hoped more folks were pooling their notes on this. I'm a bit sick of the question, a bit sick of answering it, and would appreciate it if folks asking for some official-word advice (a concept I don't much love) would maybe not argue with me when I come around to give it.

[Drachasor]

I guess I just think the terminology in the book is unclear which is probably causing the confusion.  I don't mean any offense by that.

If I understand you correctly, a Compel is essentially a type of Invoke For Effect, though it can be initiated on oneself or by the GM to cause a complication of some sort (which a normal Invoke for Effect cannot be done).  Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).

I'm sorry about being so pedantic, I am just trying to clarify this fully in my head (Invoke for Effect is a bit vague in the rules, only explicitly mentioning declarations).  Seems like that is a clarification worth stickying or the like.  Again, no offense intended.

Anyhow, you don't have to respond, of course (if you are anything like me, then you probably read those dang threads that annoy you after you say you aren't responding anymore).  I am sure others will respond to this post about whether I am following all this correctly.

[noclue]

Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).

Close enough. If invoking for effect creates a situation that is "compel worthy" it can lead to a Compel. At that point you play out the Compel as usual.

[BumblingBear]

I would like to second that threads like this one where we get a WORD OF FRED about an important issue gets stickied.

I know that for the most part the same questions keep getting asked over and over again.

How about a mod or Iago himself stickies them so the madness does not repeat itself?

[Jinn Master]

Or we could take it upon ourselves to comb the board and find them, instead of having them have to do it. A thread with all of them similar to Woj in the spoilers section would work well- they could sticky it, we maintain it.

[BumblingBear]

Or we could take it upon ourselves to comb the board and find them, instead of having them have to do it. A thread with all of them similar to Woj in the spoilers section would work well- they could sticky it, we maintain it.

I like my idea better.

Wading through 60 posts with keywords you're looking for is a lot more aggravating than a few stickied threads.

And at the end of the day, we WANT more people to play so we can have a bigger community and more games going.  Not only that, I'd prefer that less people have cause to bug Fred (myself included) about simply answered things and the community could just police its own.

[TheMouse]

Hey, Fred.

I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to answer questions like this. It's above and beyond the call of duty, and some of us very much appreciate you doing it. For me, at least, it's one of the things that keeps me coming back to Evil Hat.

That and the awesome games.

[ScottMcG]

Well, I want to chime in and say that I don't think pedantry is bad, especially when its goal is to clarify a murky topic. I definitely agree with you that there is a lack of clarity in how this is presented in the DFRPG books.  And as you say, this may be criticism, but it's certainly not intended to cause offense.

But, back to the pedantry at hand.  It seems to me from Fred's sequence example above that while there might be some similarity between the play on aspects between an invoke (specifically "invoke for effect", which I now understand to be clearly a subset of invokes in general) and a compel, the bridge between the "invoke for effect" and the compel highlights that they are two separate things, not just in how they are defined, but separate instances of separate things in the sequence example.  The "compel" that is triggered by the "invoke for effect" carries on after the "invoke for effect" has completed.  The sequence example indicates the "effect" that is being specified (i.e. what is being created by the "invoke for effect") is the actual compel, and then that is run between the GM and the object of the "invoke for effect".  

I feel that I now have a much better understanding of these concepts. Understanding the intention of the source material, rather than dictating to us how we should play helps us better determine whether it's appropriate for our play-style and group.  To me, that's the value of an "official answer".  So, for me, this has been a very productive discussion.

As far as "pooling our notes" goes, I've been editing a document that I keep for my players that keeps all of the clarifications and examples I've used with regard to the mechanics and terminology of Aspects, including the input from other folks and threads like this.  It's linked here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23117.0.html

Comments and criticism always welcome.

-S

I guess I just think the terminology in the book is unclear which is probably causing the confusion.  I don't mean any offense by that.

If I understand you correctly, a Compel is essentially a type of Invoke For Effect, though it can be initiated on oneself or by the GM to cause a complication of some sort (which a normal Invoke for Effect cannot be done).  Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).

I'm sorry about being so pedantic, I am just trying to clarify this fully in my head (Invoke for Effect is a bit vague in the rules, only explicitly mentioning declarations).  Seems like that is a clarification worth stickying or the like.  Again, no offense intended.

Anyhow, you don't have to respond, of course (if you are anything like me, then you probably read those dang threads that annoy you after you say you aren't responding anymore).  I am sure others will respond to this post about whether I am following all this correctly.

[infusco]

It should be noted that you can't Invoke for Effect leading to a compel without first succeeding in the Maneuver or Declaration roll required for the Aspect to be there in the first place.

For example, someone mentioned the Aspect of Loose Gun Grip. Well, what led him to have a Loose Gun Grip in the first place? If the target is a trained gunman, for example a bodyguard for hire or a soldier, the odds of him having a loose grip should lead to a either a declaration of some fiendish difficulty (Superb+) or a logical maneuver to disarm him which requires closing to melee range with the gunman (as opposed to, you know, standing by some crates and not getting shot). Or shooting him with a butter cannon or something.

And even there, once you've placed that Aspect on him, you and the GM (and the GM and his NPC) negotiate the terms of that Compel, so a GM could simply say no go because he thinks it's too powerful an effect. The latter is where I have some concerns. I'd like to ensure I'm being fair with players and playing a balanced game.

That being said, while a Compel is negotiable, you can still Invoke for a reroll or a +2. So even if the gunman with a Loose Gun Grip does *not* drop his weapon, you can still claim his poor grip is affecting his aim and tag that to give your own defensive roll a boost by implying that the gunman's shot went a little high. No GM would prevent that.

[ScottMcG]

It's a fundamental principle that an aspect has to exist before you can invoke it whether for a vanilla invoke, invoke for effect, or compel, right?  However, you can Invoke for Effect leading to a compel with an aspect that already exists. It's not necessary that the aspect be created with a Maneuver or Declaration. It could be guessed, or discovered via assessment.

It should be noted that you can't Invoke for Effect leading to a compel without first succeeding in the Maneuver or Declaration roll required for the Aspect to be there in the first place.

For example, someone mentioned the Aspect of Loose Gun Grip. Well, what led him to have a Loose Gun Grip in the first place? If the target is a trained gunman, for example a bodyguard for hire or a soldier, the odds of him having a loose grip should lead to a either a declaration of some fiendish difficulty (Superb+) or a logical maneuver to disarm him which requires closing to melee range with the gunman (as opposed to, you know, standing by some crates and not getting shot). Or shooting him with a butter cannon or something.

And even there, once you've placed that Aspect on him, you and the GM (and the GM and his NPC) negotiate the terms of that Compel, so a GM could simply say no go because he thinks it's too powerful an effect. The latter is where I have some concerns. I'd like to ensure I'm being fair with players and playing a balanced game.

That being said, while a Compel is negotiable, you can still Invoke for a reroll or a +2. So even if the gunman with a Loose Gun Grip does *not* drop his weapon, you can still claim his poor grip is affecting his aim and tag that to give your own defensive roll a boost by implying that the gunman's shot went a little high. No GM would prevent that.

[infusco]

It's a fundamental principle that an aspect has to exist before you can invoke it whether for a vanilla invoke, invoke for effect, or compel, right?  However, you can Invoke for Effect leading to a compel with an aspect that already exists. It's not necessary that the aspect be created with a Maneuver or Declaration. It could be guessed, or discovered via assessment.

Oh Of course. Mind you, the 'guessing' part is only used in the case of a secret Aspect already being on that character. It's basically an Assessment where you toss the GM a Fate point and hope you're right. But you can't use that in place of a Declaration for Aspects that are not already there. It's unlikely any gunman you come across would have Loose Gun Grip by default, for example.

Incidentally, how do you guys handle consequences on NPCs? For example, if a PC hits an NPC hard enough to give him a consequence, do you straight out tell the PCs what the Aspect is? Do you roleplay it so that they can easily guess?

[skippy71]

I want to make sure I understand this so providing an example. Please let me know if this is correct or incorrect.

Rijek Immonen - White Court Virgin has placed an aspect of "Blind Rage" on mobster Johnny McBad. Later, Rijek decides to Invoke For Effect on this aspect and since it has not yet been Invoked, he Tags it for free, stating that Johnny strikes out at random this turn. Since this is a compel against Johnny's aspect Blind Rage and Rijek's player is Tagging it, the Fate Point economy is purely between the GM and Johnny, so if I as GM accept this compel, then I give Johnny a fate point and if Johnny doesn't want to strike out in Blind Rage, then he must remove a fate point from his pool (or I as the GM must remove a fate point from my general pool if Johnny has none).

[infusco]

I want to make sure I understand this so providing an example. Please let me know if this is correct or incorrect.

Rijek Immonen - White Court Virgin has placed an aspect of "Blind Rage" on mobster Johnny McBad. Later, Rijek decides to Invoke For Effect on this aspect and since it has not yet been Invoked, he Tags it for free, stating that Johnny strikes out at random this turn. Since this is a compel against Johnny's aspect Blind Rage and Rijek's player is Tagging it, the Fate Point economy is purely between the GM and Johnny, so if I as GM accept this compel, then I give Johnny a fate point and if Johnny doesn't want to strike out in Blind Rage, then he must remove a fate point from his pool (or I as the GM must remove a fate point from my general pool if Johnny has none).

Pretty much ... although if you go with the go with Fate point swapping rules, then Johnny would not get a Fate point for accepting a Compel since no Fate points were spent in the first place on the free Tag.

And since it is a Compel, it's essentially a negotiation process, so a GM could simply refuse your description of the Compel or suggest you Compel differently. There's a great deal of GM fiat in a Compel, which could be considered a good thing since it allows the GM to subtly guide the story where he wants to go without railroading.

[Drachasor]

Pretty much ... although if you go with the go with Fate point swapping rules, then Johnny would not get a Fate point for accepting a Compel since no Fate points were spent in the first place on the free Tag.

Iago said that the following was correct:

So not only can you invoke for effect for free with a tag, but you can also compel for "free" and the GM acts in your stead from the fate point economics standpoint of a compel?

So Johny DOES get a fate point, as with any compel.  Basic compel rules don't change...if you are compelled, then you get a fate point (the only except to this principle, as I understand it, are in cases of debt).

[infusco]

Iago said that the following was correct:
So Johny DOES get a fate point, as with any compel.  Basic compel rules don't change...if you are compelled, then you get a fate point (the only except to this principle, as I understand it, are in cases of debt).

I disagree. The main Compel section involves the GM Compelling one of your *existing* Aspects. If you can Invoke For Effect leading to a Compel, then the GM is essentially acting as a meta-middleman, so the only way he can slide a Fate point towards the target of the Compel is if there was a Fate point used in the first place by the player initiating it. That's how I see it.

Mind you, note that this is only the case on the free Tag. Every other Invoke for Effect involves a Fate point expenditure. But the creation of a brand new Aspect, via either a Declaration, Assessment or Consequence, should reward the person who created it and disadvantage the victim. If the victim is disadvantaged, then it makes no sense to reward him with a Fate point since it's a mechanism designed to offer a future advantage to balance it out.