Compelling Consequences

[zerogain]

Thanks, folks, you all have really helped.

[Becq]

A few quotes that might prove helpful from YS106:

The only thing to keep in mind is that, if you’re invoking an aspect on another PC or on a NPC to gain an advantage over them, that character will receive the fate point you spent, either at the end of the exchange (in conflict, see page 197) or at the end of the scene (outside of conflict).

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.

Tags, even if they are to a character’s detriment, do not award a fate point like a normal invocation would. If no fate point was spent, there’s no fate point to pass around.

So putting this together, you can see that under normal conditions, you can invoke an aspect on another character's sheet, and if you do so to gain an advantage over them they get the Fate point you spent.  (There's an example of invoking for effect on the same page, by the way.)  If you discover or create an aspect (consequences would be an example of creating an aspect, as would maneuvers), you get a free tag, and in the case of free tags, the invoker does not spend a Fate point and the target does not get a Fate point.  (Additional invokes against the consequence would cost a Fate point which would go to the target).  The post mentioned above clarifies this whole process (by pointing out that tags can be used for invocations, for example), but YS106 goes over most of the salient points.

Note, by the way, that while the victim doesn't get a Fate point for the initial tag right away, they *would* get 'paid' for recieving the consequence if they were taken out yet survived the encounter.

[zenten]

Becq: Nothing you posted applies to compels.  By a strict RAW reading you can't use a tag for a compel at all.

[Becq]

Did you look at the example for that section?  I'll quote it for your convenience:

"Later in the game, Biff is talking to someone in a bar who’s been spying on him, and he knows from a previous assessment that the guy has a Bad Temper aspect. He decides to invoke the guy’s aspect with his Intimidation roll to get the guy to lose his cool and slip up.  Because that invocation creates a disadvantage for the spy, the GM gives that character a fate point at the end of the scene, to save for a future meeting."

This is an example given in the section on invoking other characters' aspects.  Clearly, it's a invoke used as a compel.  The very next section, on tagging, says that tagging lets you "invoke it [the taggable aspect] one time, and one time only, for free".  Ie, compel allows invoke; invoke allows compel.

Fred's discussion mentioned above was only a clarification, not a new rule (which is, I believe, how he described the post, too).

[devonapple]

Becq: Nothing you posted applies to compels.  By a strict RAW reading you can't use a tag for a compel at all.

I interpreted the RAW exactly the same way long ago.

You're just going to have to trust us that this has been thoroughly dredged up, bled over, argued, and that eventually we got a lead game designer to address it in the link I provided (again, for your convenience: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.0.html).

[crusher_bob]

Though I will point out that, "use zero as your base defense" is a mechanically horrible compel because it's very close to compel: "Die!".  So compels should generally not be like that.

[devonapple]

Though I will point out that, "use zero as your base defense" is a mechanically horrible compel because it's very close to compel: "Die!".  So compels should generally not be like that.

That's how Ambush works.

[Silverblaze]

Though I will point out that, "use zero as your base defense" is a mechanically horrible compel because it's very close to compel: "Die!".  So compels should generally not be like that.

Agreed.  GM's and players should agree not to use that compell because it cuts both ways and would be bad for story generally in my opinion. 

That's how Ambush works.

Yeah but tagging a consequence for effect s a compel for +0 defense isn't really an ambush...the foe still sees you.  There is just nothing he can do about it.  Which is pretty nasty since in theory you can do that from just a mild consequence.

Though Fred/Iago did mention sometimes the GM/PC or GM/NPC will agree such a compell is "weaksauce" and not agree to it.  ----paraphrasing from the thread Devonapple linked.

[ways and means]

The way I look at it the compel has to be reasonable so compel someone with a bruise to lose their defense isn't reasonable so can't be done, whilst compelling someone who has just lost an arm to lose his defense roll is far more reasonable agonising pain lack of arm to defend with etc same goes with legs and dodging, and I would argue an invisibility manouvre could also warrant a compel to lose a defense.

[devonapple]

No problem: I agree that defending at 0 isn't always an appropriate Compel, but felt it was occasionally going to be a suitable option.

[zerogain]

So that I understand correctly:

A wizard uses a variant of a wind gust air evocation to apply an aspect to a scene that suggest the foes are being tossed of their feet and forced back.  Say the aspect is "Blown Back", could the wizard's player use the tag (he made the aspect, he gets a tag) to compel that aspect on his foes and force them back for a time?

I'm assuming this would be a scene aspect. Could the wizard pick and choose who to compel the aspect on? Would he have to pony up fate points for every opponent, or because it's a scene aspect does he just get to tag it and pick the enemies?

Of course that opens up the possibility of adversaries compelling the aspect with their own fate points.

[Taran]

This has come up in a couple of threads that I've started.  Yes, you tag the maneuver, consequence etc for free and it's a compel on the the target.

It's funny because the wizard my party wants the exact same spell.  

I'm going to complicate the problem slightly:

1. I'd like to get a feeling for what people do with Zone-wide affects.  Does a single invoke trigger a compel for everyone in the zone or can you only compel one target at a time.

I know Devonapple says only one target while Sinker says you can do zone wide compels.  I'm curious how other GM's handle it. I don't think there's anything definite in the books.

2.  If a spell is specifically designed to do something, like a powerful gust of wind that blows a target into another zone, does the target just resist and if they fail they get pushed back, or do you Invoke for Effect and offer a compel to the target?  If it's the latter, then it makes the spell less predictable.  Even if they fail to resist, you still might not get the intended effect.

@zerogain.  If you want to check out those threads I posted, they weren't intended to be threads about Invoking, but they went that way:


Sunlight Spell: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25842.0.html
A bit Frustrated:  http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25400.0.html  ***this one is more useful.

[devonapple]

I know Devonapple says only one target while Sinker says you can do zone wide compels.  

I am, if it helps, desperately hoping someone proves my interpretation wrong. I'm going to consult with some friends as well on this question.

[devonapple]

So far, my gaming community tends to hold to the goose/gander principle, and maintain that NPCs and PCs be held to similar rules:

If every PC in a Zone deserves a Fate Point from an NPC for getting an Invoke/Compel of an Aspect (whether it is a Zone Aspect like "Building on Fire" or a personal Aspect like "Tangled in Vines" which was placed on them individually by a Zonewide Evocation Maneuver), they reason that every NPC in a Zone should require the same from a Player's Fate Point pool.

On a side note, they were surprised that DFRPG didn't use the same Minions rules that SotC uses, and expressed concern that my example gang of ten faceless enemy monsters in a single Zone wasn't being run as a single entity, which would have obviated this question entirely.

I'm still open to correction, of course.

[sinker]

2.  If a spell is specifically designed to do something, like a powerful gust of wind that blows a target into another zone, does the target just resist and if they fail they get pushed back, or do you Invoke for Effect and offer a compel to the target?  If it's the latter, then it makes the spell less predictable.  Even if they fail to resist, you still might not get the intended effect.

For me this is always a question of effort expended. If someone makes a quick declaration and then tags it for the same effect then they aren't really putting a lot of effort into it and I won't feel bad having the target defend (though I'd likely make the difficulty high since it's not really that cool when someone comes up with something clever and interesting that does absolutely nothing). However we're talking about a spell. A wizard normally has only four of those without getting into long term resources. If they're spending one of their four spells to get someone into another zone then I'll just put them in the other zone and give them a fate point.

On a sort of related note I'm not sure that an environmental attack or something that is defended against is technically a compel. A compel would be them accepting difficulty, whereas these other effects would be an external effect that they do their best to resist. So I might not give them a fate point if they actually defend against the effect (or even if they don't defend but had the chance to). Not sure about this though, it just seems rightish.