Compelling Consequences

[Taran]

I must be tired because I need clarification on the last 2 posts.

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.

I'm still open to correction, of course.

I agree that a zone wide compel should affect everyone in the zone regardless of whether they're NPC or PC.  But just as clarification, If I offer all the PC's a FP for that Zone-wide compel, you think the PC's should give their FP's to the NPC's?  So the PC's don't get a FP, it just gets shifted to the NPC's?  I figured the GM just handed out FP's where appropriate.  I'm obviously not understanding your meaning.

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.

So I use my flamethrower to make the "building on fire".  You don't compel?  You just make everyone roll against environmental damage every round because that's just what's happening?

[devonapple]

I must be tired because I need clarification on the last 2 posts.

I agree that a zone wide compel should affect everyone in the zone regardless of whether they're NPC or PC.  But just as clarification, If I offer all the PC's a FP for that Zone-wide compel, you think the PC's should give their FP's to the NPC's?  So the PC's don't get a FP, it just gets shifted to the NPC's?  I figured the GM just handed out FP's where appropriate.  I'm obviously not understanding your meaning.

So I use my flamethrower to make the "building on fire".  You don't compel?  You just make everyone roll against environmental damage every round because that's just what's happening?

What I/they meant was that: if an NPC warlock places an Aspect on all of the PCs (having used a Zonewide Evocation Maneuver, and successfully overcome each of the PC's defense rolls), and then Invoke/Compels it, the PCs would want a Fate Point for it, and would likely want it from that NPC's stash (if any).

The goose/gander principle coming into play means that if a PC Wizard places the same Aspect on a bunch of NPCs (having similarly used a Zonewide Evocation Maneuver, and successfully overcome each of the NPC's defense rolls), and then Invoke/Compels it, the NPCs should get a Fate Point for it, from that PC's stash.

The ultimate question is: how much weight does a Maneuver Aspect have when it is successfully placed on a target within a Zonewide Evocation, as far as free tags go?

Edit: pulling out the big guns and asking Iago.

[Becq]

Based on http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205

From a mechanics standpoint, there seems to be a deliberate disconnect between the invocation (which can be an invoke-for-effect that in turn triggers a compel) and the compel itself that results.  So this makes me wonder if the interpretation should be as follows.

When you invoke an aspect for effect, it has the relevant effect on whatever scope is appropriate.  So a aspect placed on an individual would affect only the individual, while an aspect placed on a scene would affect the scene.  If the 'effect' in question is intended to cause trouble, then this effect would then basically act as a bribe to cause the GM to issue a compel against any involved individuals.

So if the scene has an aspect of "Strong Gusts of Wind", then you are allowing two things to occur:
1) If the GM feels it's appropriate, he can offer a compel to anyone or everyone in the area (and should probably lean toward everyone), and those who accept the compel will be troubled in some negotiated way.  Perhaps they are knocked down, for example.
2) If a player chooses to, then they can spend a Fate to invoke the aspect for effect, which then triggers #1.  The player is paying one Fate to make the aspect cause trouble to the scene, and that trouble is resolved as a compel against each individual in the scene (with Fate coming from the supply).

One thing to note, by the way, is that there does not seem to be a mechanic for casting a spell to place an aspect on a zone.  An attack can be against a zone, but a maneuver places an aspect on an indivudual or on the scene (which means that an invoke would cause trouble for everyone on both sides, rather than being focused on the group of baddies in that zone over there).  This is probably a good thing; it makes the above interpretation more balanced.

Note also, of course, that the compels can still be bought out of as normal.  Ex: As the GM distributes the Fate to all and sundry after the wind kicks up, a player might  refuse the Fate, toss in one of his own, and say that since he was up against a wall at the time, the wind had little detrimental impact on him.

[Taran]

Based on http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205

From a mechanics standpoint, there seems to be a deliberate disconnect between the invocation (which can be an invoke-for-effect that in turn triggers a compel) and the compel itself that results.  So this makes me wonder if the interpretation should be as follows.

When you invoke an aspect for effect, it has the relevant effect on whatever scope is appropriate.  So a aspect placed on an individual would affect only the individual, while an aspect placed on a scene would affect the scene.  If the 'effect' in question is intended to cause trouble, then this effect would then basically act as a bribe to cause the GM to issue a compel against any involved individuals.

So if the scene has an aspect of "Strong Gusts of Wind", then you are allowing two things to occur:
1) If the GM feels it's appropriate, he can offer a compel to anyone or everyone in the area (and should probably lean toward everyone), and those who accept the compel will be troubled in some negotiated way.  Perhaps they are knocked down, for example.
2) If a player chooses to, then they can spend a Fate to invoke the aspect for effect, which then triggers #1.  The player is paying one Fate to make the aspect cause trouble to the scene, and that trouble is resolved as a compel against each individual in the scene (with Fate coming from the supply).

One thing to note, by the way, is that there does not seem to be a mechanic for casting a spell to place an aspect on a zone.  An attack can be against a zone, but a maneuver places an aspect on an indivudual or on the scene (which means that an invoke would cause trouble for everyone on both sides, rather than being focused on the group of baddies in that zone over there).  This is probably a good thing; it makes the above interpretation more balanced.

Note also, of course, that the compels can still be bought out of as normal.  Ex: As the GM distributes the Fate to all and sundry after the wind kicks up, a player might  refuse the Fate, toss in one of his own, and say that since he was up against a wall at the time, the wind had little detrimental impact on him.

So your vote is that 1 invoke will compel everyone in the zone.  That you don't need to spend multiple FP's to force a compel on each person in that zone. 

[sinker]

I just realized that Fred may have obliquely answered the question here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022188.html#msg1022188

If the GM deals with the fate point being given to a single person then I see no reason why the GM wouldn't deal with it for many. As far as I can tell the compel is always the purview of the GM and the GM always deals with the fate point economy of the compel. A player can never compel (unless we're talking about self-compels, and even then the GM decides whether it's compel worthy) so why would they pay for compels they aren't initiating? This would apply to NPCs as well though. The GM compels, not the NPC so the NPC wouldn't fund the compel.

As for my earlier comment I just don't like it when a compel doesn't result in actual difficulty. If someone gets a fate point and then dodges the environmental attack every time, that just doesn't seem right. Even if they don't dodge they had the chance to and it's the result of the roll that is creating difficulty not the compel. That's why I'm inclined to deal with it in the ways I mentioned above (Take them out if they aren't important to the scene or limit them if they are).

[devonapple]

I'm still conflicted about the scale. I'll post if Fred is able to get back to me.

[Becq]

I think that what makes the idea of scene-wide compels work (to my mind) is that they are scene-wide, not zone-wide (because attacks can target a zone, maneuvers target an individual or the scene).  If you trigger a scene aspect, it hits both (or all) sides equally.  Another way of looking at it is that instead of paying a Fate per subject to be affected, your side is paying a Fate to trigger, then another Fate per target not affected.  For even fights, this ends up being a wash, but it does it in a way that makes sense.

Use the strong wind-style aspect as an example.  It makes no sense that a gust of wind would suddenly pick up, tossing around only the vampires, leaving the mortals untouched.  It makes more sense that it hits everyone ... well, everyone except those for which Fate had another plan.

[finnmckool]

So what if you only want your zone to have the aspect of "On FIRE!" to herd your target to a different zone in the scene? "No no. Don't go through that door, that room is On FIRE! Don't you see all your fellow minions in there shrieking?"

[devonapple]

I asked Fred Hicks:

> You have established that a free tag of a new Aspect can be used to
> Invoke for Effect, even becoming a Compel.
>
> The (hopefully) simple question is: how much weight - as far as free
> tags go - does a Maneuver-based Aspect have when it is one of several
> such Aspects successfully placed at the same time on each of many
> targets within a Zonewide Evocation? (As differentiated from a simple
> Zone Aspect which maybe cost 3-5 shifts.)
>
> If a spellcaster successfully places the "On Fire" Aspect on 10 NPCs
> in a Zone (having used a Zonewide Evocation Maneuver, and successfully
> overcome each of the NPC's defense rolls, and paid presumably 10
> shifts to get it), and then Invokes-for-Effect/Compels it ("each NPC
> spends a round screaming and putting out the flames"), is only one of
> those tags free? Or should the player have 9 more Fate Points in
> reserve to Invoke/Compel that Aspect on the 9 other NPCs?
>
> Should this be different than if the spellcaster had simply placed the
> scene Aspect "Building on Fire" (for something like 3 shifts)?
>
> And what if a caster had instead used a Spray Attack on an Evocation
> Maneuver to surgically apply that Aspect to multiple NPCs (for
> significantly more than 10 shifts)? Would each of those Aspects be
> worth a free tag?

The response from Lenny via Fred:

...the question hinges on whether or not what the player's asking for is "for effect" or if its a full-on compel, which hinges on the intent of the benefit the player's looking to get out of it...
...if it's, "...and we get a breather this round to prepare something, like a spell," I'd call that tag for effect, and free...
...where there is no debate about compel vs. for effect, yeah - a tag is a tag is a tag. 10 NPCs with a maneuver put on them at the same time = 10 free tags.

The full response, though, is:

Except for a marginalia comment, the rules do not state that a tag can be used to garner someone the benefits of a compel, and even the marginalia comment is iffy - tag for effect is all right, but compel? Forget that noise - no free lunches.

So the question hinges on whether or not what the player's asking for is "for effect" or if its a full-on compel, which hinges on the intent of the benefit the player's looking to get out of it.

If it's, "...and we get away because they're all on fire," I'd call that a compel, and not free. But I don't know that I would charge 9 Fate Points for it or whatever -- I might use the escalation rule and say, "Well, you want to compel all the NPCs in the scene... I'll escalate once and take that compel for two of your fate points." Or something like that.

If it's, "...and we get a breather this round to prepare something, like a spell," I'd call that tag for effect, and free.

But where there is no debate about compel vs. for effect, yeah - a tag is a tag is a tag. 10 NPCs with a maneuver put on them at the same time = 10 free tags.

So, there appears to be some variance in opinion from Evil Hat leadership on whether or not an Invoke for Effect can trigger a Compel.

What I choose to do with this information is to run my games as if:
A) an individual free tag Invoke for Effect can trigger a Compel, if the GM agrees with it - it is not an obligation.
B) a more plot-impacting, large-scale Compel - involving multiple NPCs with free-taggable Aspects - cannot be triggered for free by a free tag Invoke for Effect, but that Compel doesn't need to be priced on a per-NPC basis: the GM can use the Escalation rules.

[Becq]

@finnmckool: I think that in that example, you aren't doing an invoke-for-effect-triggering-a-compel.  Instead, you are doing an intimidation roll, invoking the scene aspect for a +2 to the roll, which wouldn't do anything to anyone not a target of the intimidate.

@devonappel: Well, that's a surprising answer.  It indicates that you can use a single maneuver to produce multiple aspects on diverse targets, which strikes me as too powerful -- because it *does* allow you to select which aspect you tag and which you don't.  Allowing a single zone aspect to be created could perhaps have worked, but this ruling seems to indicate that you could toss out a zone maneuver, tagging everyone in the zone with their own aspects (including some friends) and then tag only the aspects that attached to your enemies.  Now, it *would* allow your enemies to invoke that aspects on your friends, but they would have to spend the Fate per target, because *they* aren't allowed to tag those aspects you created (only you or someone you nominate can, right?)

Hm.

[noclue]

So, there appears to be some variance in opinion from Evil Hat leadership on whether or not an Invoke for Effect can trigger a Compel.

To me they seem to be saying essentially the same thing. If they're going for a small benefit, on the level of something you would do with a declaration or assessment, it's just a Tag. If they're trying to get a game changing twist (i.e. we get away scott free!" that's going to cost FP. In Fred's reply, the GM has freedom to establish the price, which makes sense since the GM presumably has the freedom to deny that the compel is worthy in the first place.