Tagging own temporary aspects

[ZMiles]

Hey all:

I'm GMing a game on the board right now (Forced to Fight), and recently a disagreement arose between me and the players. The issue is whether you get a free tag on aspects that you put on yourself (naval-gazing aspects), like you would if you put the aspect on somebody else.

I'm against this, for three reasons:

1. When the book mentions tags, it does so specifically in reference to tags on other people/scenes (YS106). The book doesn't mention placing aspects on yourself at all until page 207, and even then, it doesn't mention tags. By contrast, when discussing tags, the context is on using aspects of other PCs, NPCs, and the scene.

2. Disallowing tags on your own aspects increases player interaction, since they can tag each other's aspects but not their own. Rather than a wizard giving him 'fireproof' and then tagging it to run into a burning building, for instance, maybe he gives it to another party member and then tags that so they can run through the building. Or the other player tags it, perhaps as part of a social attack ("Look, my friend's freaking fireproof, here. We can take anything you dish out.") Allowing the tags would let the wizard just do this all himself, which isn't as interesting.

3. Naval-gazing manuevers are almost always unopposed and thus very easy to place (YS207). It seems unbalanced to give people a free +2 bonus for a roll that is usually against a difficulty of 0. (I'd already said that I'd be willing to allow tags in cases where the aspect-placing rolls are opposed).

The player objected, saying that this defeats the point of placing manuevers on oneself in the first place, since they can't be tagged. He added that maneuvers on oneself also take up a round, and since tags usually have to be used soon after the aspects are assessed or created, this is a significant cost (so point 3 wouldn't apply). Finally, he said that the sections on YS 105 and 106, when thy refer to tagging other aspects, only exclude tagging the character's 7 major aspects (HC, Trouble, etc). I'd argue, though, that because the sections explicitly refer to the aspects of the scene, NPCs, and other PCs, and don't mention oneself, that those pages do not refer to any aspects that one has on oneself.

Does the forum have any wisdom on this issue?

[Mal_Luck]

> We're having some disagreement with our GM about tagging aspects created via navel-gazing.
>
> From YS106:
> "A tag is a special move that you may be able to do when you’re invoking aspects other than your own. 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—as  in, you don’t spend  from your pool of fate points to take advantage of the aspect."
>
> He's saying that the invoking of the navel-gazed aspect is part of the characters "own" aspects, while we're trying to explain that that's referring to the seven aspects that the player starts with.
>
> His side of the argument makes it so any aspect placed on yourself by navel-gazing cannot have a free tag.
>
> Could we have some clarification for us and our GM?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Shane Kelly

From Fred:

"I allow tags on such aspects at my table. If your GM has a good reason
for disallowing it, tho, that's within the prerogative of the social
rules of your playgroup."

[Drachasor]

1. When the book mentions tags, it does so specifically in reference to tags on other people/scenes (YS106). The book doesn't mention placing aspects on yourself at all until page 207, and even then, it doesn't mention tags. By contrast, when discussing tags, the context is on using aspects of other PCs, NPCs, and the scene.

Personally, I think tagging can be used on stuff you place on yourself.  I think this is a lack of clarity in the book.
Page 98 talks about tagging anything YOU PLACE.

Let's look at the main section now:
"A tag is a special move that you may be able to do when you’re invoking aspects other than your own. 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—as in, you don’t spend from your pool of fate points to take advantage of the aspect."

Your aspects, are the ones your character is created with.  Aspects PLACED on you, are not technically yours in that sense, imho.  Further, it talks about rolling to gain access or create aspects in general later in that paragraph, something you can't do with your own aspects, obviously.....drat, out of time and gotta run, I'll have to finish the rest later unless someone else handles it while I am gone.

[Drachasor]

From Fred:

"I allow tags on such aspects at my table. If your GM has a good reason
for disallowing it, tho, that's within the prerogative of the social
rules of your playgroup."

Kind of funny.  What isn't within the prerogative of the social rules of one's playgroup?

[luminos]

Kind of funny.  What isn't within the prerogative of the social rules of one's playgroup?

Nothing really.  Fred's just pointing out that the rest of the system isn't going to break unexpectedly if you change this thing.

[BumblingBear]

I think the book is pretty clear that you can tag navel gazing maneuvers for one free tag.

Why the hell would you be able to tag a maneuver you put on somebody else and not on yourself?  Regardless of the difficulty of doing either, it still takes a round and still takes a roll to create an aspect.  With that time and effort spent, you get one free tag.

What would be the point of self maneuvering if you could not tag it?  A fate point?  Please.

You can use a fate point to invoke one of your permanent aspects.  It would not be necessary to spend a round and place an aspect on yourself just to invoke it for a fate point.  That would be a waste of time.

The whole purpose of self maneuvers is to get a leg up.  A specific example that I have seen and have used in my game is to generate a "mystical arm waving" aspect before casting a spell.  This can be a discipline or athletics roll, but thematically I could see it being used to gather and channel energy.

Mechanically it's a navel gazing maneuver that gave me a +2 on my subsequent spell.

[jybil178]

Yeah, I've always thought of being able to use your own navel-gazing maneuver's tags...  It honestly never crossed my mind not to...  But if from the rest of some other peoples reactions, particularly the quote from Fred, it would seem you could run it either way..

As a note, I personally don't have navel-gazing as a set difficulty of 0...  I honestly have it at a flat 3+, with another shift allowing it to be more than a Fragile aspect.  I just don't see why it wouldn't be set to the base difficulty of creating an Aspect..  Plus, it means that only players with a 3+ in a skill will be able to reliably place and tag the maneuvers, so in a way, its a bit of a limiter, if thats what your looking for..

And PS, if other people have lower Navel Gazing difficulties, please let me know..  Its just my own interpretation of the rules, and if people disagree, or have their own way of doing it, I'd like to hear it.

[noclue]

The difficulty of an unopposed roll is set by the GM, right? So, why would there be a set difficulty for putting an aspect on yourself? I would set the difficulty how you see it and what makes sense in the context.

[jybil178]

The difficulty of an unopposed roll is set by the GM, right? So, why would there be a set difficulty for putting an aspect on yourself? I would set the difficulty how you see it and what makes sense in the context.

True...  The primary reason I like the idea of a difficulty of +3, is that is the standard difficulty for spells, and other such effects to add an Aspect on the Environment or such...  And I don't like the idea of getting a +2 bonus to something at 0 or so difficulty, to be honest, and I know my players would attempt or ask if I didn't set the standard difficulty.

[bitterpill]

I don't see any reason why navel gazeing should not count for a free tag even if it does come at zero difficulty in terms of the action economy of the game everyone has only one attack a turn so using up your action is a pretty big disadvantage, the majority of the time a turn is worth more than a +2 bonus. 

[Drachasor]

The difficulty of an unopposed roll is set by the GM, right? So, why would there be a set difficulty for putting an aspect on yourself? I would set the difficulty how you see it and what makes sense in the context.

The OP was leaning on the fact the book recommends to not worry about the difficulty for such things and implies you should just let people successfully apply them.  I think part of the reasoning here is that if you are applying something to yourself, then you aren't helping a bunch of things get stacked onto another person which can then all be tagged to take someone out.  It IS more powerful to place a tag on someone else, generally speaking.

[BumblingBear]

The OP was leaning on the fact the book recommends to not worry about the difficulty for such things and implies you should just let people successfully apply them.  I think part of the reasoning here is that if you are applying something to yourself, then you aren't helping a bunch of things get stacked onto another person which can then all be tagged to take someone out.  It IS more powerful to place a tag on someone else, generally speaking.

Exactly.

NGM can only be use by the person initiating them - not the group.  Aspects placed on an enemy can be used by the whole group - they're more powerful.

NGM should be a bit easier than projected maneuvers since they're less effective. (even with a free tag).

I have 8 players in my game.  NGM are kind of selfish actually... but sometimes necessary.

[Ranma1558]

I'd have to say they do get a free tag, my question would be this, if an enemy spots this NGM they likely will get a free tag, does this use up the tag? If so smart npcs will keep such things to a minimum.

[BumblingBear]

I'd have to say they do get a free tag, my question would be this, if an enemy spots this NGM they likely will get a free tag, does this use up the tag? If so smart npcs will keep such things to a minimum.

How could an enemy tag me having centered myself or strengthened my resolve?

Some could be used, sure, but a smart enemy would be probably better off to just cancel out a NGM with another maneuver if possible.

Like... say I just calmed my nerves and I am looking for openings.  If the monster I was fighting chose that time to make a maneuver using intimidation saying it was going to eat my friends and track down my family, that would cancel out my NGM aspect if it won the social attack.

A monster cannot tag an aspect that someone places on it - why would it be able to take your NGM?  It can remove your NGM just like it can remove an aspect maneuvered onto it, though.

[sinker]

I would like to point out one thing that's stated in the section on navel-gazing maneuvers. They aren't necessarily unopposed. If someone notices that you are a wizard gathering your concentration they are going to try to stop you. Same if you are trying to do something delicate. People can try to do all sorts of things to stop you.

Also as has been stated the difficulty is the GM's call, and I wouldn't say that that kind of thing could always be easy. If you're looking for cover in an empty warehouse (technically a navel-gazing maneuver) it's going to be pretty hard. If you're trying to gather your concentration during a firefight that might be difficult too. Performing delicate operations in the cold is tough. Not all Navel-gazing maneuvers are a cinch.