Invoking Aspects On Others: The "Interaction" Requirement

[Eunomiac]

To invoke an aspect on yourself, you need to explain how that aspect is relevant.  Clear as clear can be.

When invoking aspects on others (whether characters or scenes/zones/locations/cities/etc), the rules apply two additional requirements: Interaction and Access.  They emphasize these two requirements several times, so clearly they intend for them to be real, additional requirements to the standard rule for invoking aspects on yourself. 

The latter one, Access, seems to mean only that your character must have either created it through a maneuver/declaration/consequence, or discovered it through a guess/assessment (i.e. "your character" must have access to (knowledge of) that aspect, whatever your player happens to know).

It's the Interaction requirement that I don't get, because it seems either flatly contradictory, or completely redundant given the need to explain relevancy already.  The book attempts to illustrate these two requirements using "Ill-Met By Candlelight" (such a great aspect), presenting three examples:

• Stealth: Candles are dim, so sneaking is easy.
• Setting Things On Fire: Candles. Fire. 2+2=4.
• Triggering Unfortunate Encounters: "Ill met, indeed!" is the only guidance we get here.

Now, the first two I understand: You sneak through shadows, or tip over candles -- Interaction.  But it's the third one, and countless other similar examples of Invoking for Effect, that show no interaction whatsoever.  How does one satisfy the interaction requirement while Invoking for Effect on the third example, triggering some unfortunate encounter?  Does it work only if he calls someone on his cellphone, or otherwise "interacts" with the unfortunate encounter in some way?  I saw a combat example in which someone Invoked a villain's "Crushed Ribcage" consequence from across the room to make him stumble during his escape; no interaction there, either.  Ditto on invoking "Building on Fire" to make a ceiling collapse and block an exit -- I can't even imagine how you'd interact with that aspect.

So, what is this "Interaction" requirement, and what does it require?

[sinker]

Could you give us a page number so we can check the specific example ourselves and maybe make sure we understand everything contextually? I'm interested in the question, but I don't have the book memorized and it'd be nice to have a few places to look so that I'm on the same page as you.

[Becq]

First off, I found the reference on YS105 (gotta love having that PDF copy!)

Here's how I interpret the rules you referenced:

Access: You need to have a reason to be aware of the aspect in question in order to make use of it.  I think of this as metagaming mechanic.  For example, Donald Morgan (as statted in Our World, OW197) has the aspect Children Must Be Protected'.  If your character was aware of this, you could certainly invoke it for a bonus in a social challenge to convince him that it's more important for him to rescue that child being mugged over yonder than to harrass you about questionable ritual practice (though he might invoke "Zealotry in the Cause of Justice Is No Vice" to counter).  If your character had no reason to know about this aspect, you couldn't invoke it for a bonus, no matter how many children were being mugged.

Interaction: You need to come up with a good explanation for how that aspect (which is on another player's sheet or on the scene) applies to *your* action.  Morgan may be a "Combat Veteran", and it would certainly be appropriate for him to invoke that aspect when fighting against a ghoul, but far less appropriate for *you* to invoke it to benefit *your* attack against a ghoul, regardless of whether or not Morgan happens to be in the scene.  Basically they are just saying that while you always can make use of appriopriate aspects on your character sheet, you need to work harder to make 'foreign' aspects benefit you.

I'll admit that the third example is a bit harder to grasp, but I think that its largely a function of the aspect having very vague and/or broad wording.  An aspect of "Candle-Lit" is fairly specific and would cover the first two examples, but the addition of "Ill Met" sort of opens the door to using it to justify making Bad Things happen.  What can it be used for?  Well, it seems to me to be more useful as an excuse for plot devices than anything else, but if the group likes an idea you come up with, then you can invoke the aspect to make it happen.  (Sorry I can't be more helpful here.)

I couldn't find the "Crushed Ribcage" reference in the book, but I suspect that the example was describing a Compel, not an Invoke, and therefore plays by different rules.  Alternately, there's a "Bruised Ribs" example that describes takin an advantage in melee of your target's consequence, but that example plays well with the rules for invoking aspects of others: you knew about the aspect because you inflicted it (access) and you are punching him in those same ribs to make it hurt more (interaction).
 

[Steppenwolf]

  I saw a combat example in which someone Invoked a villain's "Crushed Ribcage" consequence from across the room to make him stumble during his escape; no interaction there, either.  Ditto on invoking "Building on Fire" to make a ceiling collapse and block an exit -- I can't even imagine how you'd interact with that aspect.

In fact they are bad examples. The requirement is the character must be part of the invoke or the compel.
In  other words Compelling players must use their own characters to trigger the compel.
They cannot use Compel like GM does.

[sinker]

The way I read interaction is that you need to describe how your character is taking advantage of that situation, which would make invoking other people's aspects a lot harder. But I'm thinking Becq's interpretation would be good for a softer approach (one that allows for more of that kind of thing).

The more I look at it the example with the "Crushed Ribs" seems like a poor interpretation of the mechanics. It seems more like a compel and I'm starting to be almost certain that a compel isn't actually something a player can do. It's not within their toolbox so to speak. Fred was saying something similar when we were discussing Tags. He was saying something about how the player invokes for effect which can trigger a compel from the GM. Since interaction is necessary for invocations, I don't see how players could trigger a lot of the compels they often attempt. Although it occurs to me that interaction is not necessary for declarations.

"The pavement dips suddenly near the villain's feet." The player slides a Fate point towards the GM. "Don't you think that might jostle his "Crushed Ribs" and cause him to collapse from the pain?"

[devonapple]

It seems more like a compel and I'm starting to be almost certain that a compel isn't actually something a player can do. It's not within their toolbox so to speak. Fred was saying something similar when we were discussing Tags. He was saying something about how the player invokes for effect which can trigger a compel from the GM.

Nope. Compels are totally within the player's province. Your note about Tags - while well remembered - was taken slightly out of context from my thread about Invoke for Effect and free tags. That discussion was specifically about how a tag (or even a "free tag") *can* be used as an Invoke For Effect which became a Compel, and what to do about the Fate Point requirement in the case of a "free tag." With a Fate Point (or free tag) and an appropriate Aspect, a player can Compel as well.

[sinker]

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.

This was specifically what I was thinking of. Although it is in the context of "what can a free tag do?" it is fair to assume that since a free tag can do everything that an invocation can do that this is a list of the things that an invocation can do. I suppose there are other things a Fate point can do but the book lists the things that can be done with a Fate point as: Gaining a +1 bonus, Using a stunt/power that requires a Fate point, declarations, and invocations(YS19-20). I guess I could be wrong, but it just seems right to me. Not that I think that the players should be somehow excluded (hence the invoke for effect triggering a compel), just that it seems like more of a GM purview thing.

[devonapple]

I remember that thread quite well.

YS 103: "Negotiating a Compel: In play, players and the GM can both initiate compels." Granted, this section is talking about one's own Aspects.

YS 107 (in the section about interacting with other Aspects outside of one's character): "Compelling Other Aspects: Being able to interact with the aspects of others creates a powerful opportunity for the clever player to set up another character to be compelled. If you are aware of and can access an aspect on another character or NPC, you may spend a fate point to try to trigger the circumstances of a compel (see page 100) on the target. If the GM decides this is a compel-worthy circumstance,
then she takes the offered fate point and proceeds with a compel, running it as if she had initiated the compel herself."

See, Fred is trying to make clear that the GM is brokering the Compel, but the player is always allowed to call for one. But he is also saying that the player can call for one. Mostly the distinction is to make clear where the Fate Points go:

"This is a chain reaction—the first player calls for the compel, and if the GM accepts it as valid, she negotiates it with the player of the target character, who either decides to accept (gaining a fate point) or avoid (spending a fate point). Once the initiating player spends the fate point, he does not get it back even if the target buys out of the compel."

Is this clear enough? Players can initiate Compels. It is a tool in their toolbox. It's a valid tactic. It's just one that requires some participation from the GM.

[sinker]

I know it seems like semantics for most people but for me it seems important to make the distinction that the player is not technically compelling. The player is invoking for effect. Then the GM is compelling. I really don't know why but that seems like an important detail to me. But as I've said I'm not trying to exclude the players nor trying to prevent them from "compelling" in the appropriate fashion.

[Tedronai]

I know it seems like semantics for most people but for me it seems important to make the distinction that the player is not technically compelling. The player is invoking for effect. Then the GM is compelling. I really don't know why but that seems like an important detail to me. But as I've said I'm not trying to exclude the players nor trying to prevent them from "compelling" in the appropriate fashion.

It is an important distinction where issues of FP economy are involved.
For instance, the subject of the Invoke-for-Effect-Compel receives a FP even if the Invoke was a Free Tag.
The Compel can escalate to multiple FPs, if appropriate, without the Invoking player having to expend additional FPs, or, indeed needing to approve of the escalation.

[LCDarkwood]

See, Fred Lenny is trying to make clear that the GM is brokering the Compel, but the player is always allowed to call for one.

I fixed this for you.

Regarding the OP - I agree that the context given for the term "interaction" as written in that section is more literal, limiting, and narrowing than it should be. Oops! Sorry about that. I blame alcohol.

The bottom line is, relevancy should have more stringent requirements when you're trying to use an aspect that isn't yours.

Thus, and you might find this controversial, the "Crushed Ribcage" move is cool by me (provided that the net benefit is a +2 to the fleeing person's Athletics roll or whathaveyou), as is the "Building on Fire" move.

Also, to clarify, invoking for effect is basically allowing you to make a declaration without rolling dice. (Bonus to the person who catches the zero-sum move in here.) Compelling another aspect is a different, but totally valid, player move as per YS 107.

[Eunomiac]

Ack, I feel bad for posting and then not checking back for several days -- thank you all for you help, I think I've got this down in that it works pretty intuitively, once the more stringently-written interaction requirement is relaxed.