Maneuver power and tagging/compelling for effect?

[Belial666]

What is the relation, if any, between the power of a maneuver and for what the aspect can be tagged or how often it is GM-compelled? For example, we got the following three effects;

1) "Lost Confidence" sticky aspect after a great (+4) intimidation roll by a badass human thug.
2) "Deeply Frightened" sticky aspect after a legendary (+8) incite fear maneuver by a White Court vamp feeding on Fear.
3) "Terrified Beyond Reason" sticky aspect after an ungodly (+16) maneuver through lawbreaking psychomancy.


a) What is the difference, if any, when those aspects are tagged for a bonus by whoever applied them? Do they give the same +2 bonus?
b) What is the difference, if any, when those aspects are tagged for effect by whoever applied them? Would the effects be stronger for stronger aspects?
c) How often do those aspects get GM-compelled? Should there be a difference in how often they are compelled depending on strength?

[EldritchFire]

An aspect is an aspect. No mater what roll applied them, nor what use they are put. It's a +2, reroll, or invoke/tag for effect.

There is no such thing as "a stronger aspect" vs. "a weaker aspect." They're all the same.

-EF

[zenten]

a) What is the difference, if any, when those aspects are tagged for a bonus by whoever applied them? Do they give the same +2 bonus?

Yes, they do.  They're also just worth a +2 bonus when invoked with a Fate point.

b) What is the difference, if any, when those aspects are tagged for effect by whoever applied them? Would the effects be stronger for stronger aspects?

This is kind of fuzzy.  You don't go by how much you succeeded on the roll to create the Aspect, you instead go on what the Aspect is and what it represents.  I don't really see how you can Invoke for Effect on these Aspects though, unless you're just trying to bribe the GM to give a Compel.

c) How often do those aspects get GM-compelled? Should there be a difference in how often they are compelled depending on strength?

These aspects get Compelled whenever the GM thinks doing so would add to the game.  Applicability is what matters here, not strength.  In general though you're going to be able to get more out of "Terrified Beyond Reason" than "Lost Confidence", barring an unusual situation.  

[Haru]

There is a difference in how you apply them. A maneuver is a maneuver, the only strength it needs is enough to beat the opposing roll of the target and it will only last a scene (if not removed earlier).

If you go further, you can go from a maneuver to a mental attack to turn an aspect into a consequence.

"Terrified beyond Reason" would probably be something like that. Even taking a defence roll of +4 to a skill of +4, you'd still have to soak up 8 shifts of stress, so it would be a medium consequence at least, and you can invoke that for quite a while (or have the GM compel them).

"Deeply Frightened" could go both ways. You could roll it as a maneuver, and it will only stay for the scene. Or you could roll it as a mental attack and hope the target doesn't roll too good, so it has to take consequences.

[Taran]

I've seen other people in various threads attach more serious penalties to higher powered maneuvers.

One just off the top of my head is if you use a gust of wind to be "blown away", a low powered spell could be invoked for effect and maybe the target gets knocked over, meanwhile a power 12 "blown away" might knock someone a few zones back - it's GM's discretion, of course.

The number of shifts failed could be a factor by how far someone might get thrown.  So even if it's a power 12 spell, if the target only fails by 1, maybe they still don't fly too far.

I think it's up to the description of the player or GM to decide.

I think, as a GM, I'm definitely going to word my compels to be in line with degrees of failure, and/or power of spells/abilities.  There are already rules for degrees of success.  You can succeed extraordinarily or decrease the amount of time it takes to do a task or create "spin", I don't see why you can't do the same for degrees of failure.

[UmbraLux]

What is the relation, if any, between the power of a maneuver and for what the aspect can be tagged or how often it is GM-compelled?

The difference is in how difficult they are to remove.  The 'victim' will need to roll an appropriate skill with enough shifts to beat the number of successes.

[Sanctaphrax]

Situations like this are the main reason that I like the optional rules for spin.

[BumblingBear]

I really think a lot of it comes down to common sense.

As an example, if a wizard does a spell maneuver for "pushed back" on an opponent and then compels it for effect, for each shift that the spell beats the defenders defense roll, I would rule there was a stronger effect.

A 0-1 shift success may blow the bad guy back 1 zone.  Greater than that and the bad guy may be blown back further and/or take damage.

Whatever is thematically appropriate.

[sinker]

The difference is in how difficult they are to remove.  The 'victim' will need to roll an appropriate skill with enough shifts to beat the number of successes.

This is true in concept, however there's no rule saying that the target needs to beat the number of successes to remove the aspect. What it says is that the target must roll over a difficulty set by the GM (which I would make high if someone got a really good roll to place it) if the aspect is not being maintained by someone. If someone is maintaining the aspect ("in my sights" is a good example) then it's a conflicted roll with one person trying to remove the aspect and the other trying to keep it, but it's a new roll (at least by my reading, I suppose it could be interpreted differently).

As for the OP, a) no difference in the bonus for invoking them. An aspect gives a +2 regardless of what it is as long as it can be used. However something to consider is that "Lost confidence" may not be as universally useful as "Terrified beyond reason" because it's a lot easier to explain how the latter effects them in every way.

b) I would actually say that the biggest difference is here. You can invoke "lost confidence" for some minor effects, but it'd be pretty reasonable to invoke "Terrified beyond reason" for all sorts of major trouble.

c) I would say that this is also a difference, but I think it's a personal call, rather than RAW. At least I'm more likely to compel a more brutal aspect then I am to compel a minor little bruise or something.

All of these things however have to do with the aspect itself, not the roll made to generate said aspect. I think those things are linked some, but I don't think there's actual RAW backing for that.

Edit: Also some of that is more appropriate for a consequence than it is for a simple aspect. It's hard to make someone "Terrified beyond reason" in such a way that they could simply shake it off within a few minutes (either by maneuvering to remove the aspect or by the scene ending).

[polkaneverdies]

Imho if someone manages to achieve legendary  shifts it would be reasonable to give them an additional tag. Ideally this would be something to be discussed with the table before it actually occurred.

[EdgeOfDreams]

The above posters have covered this pretty well.

One minor houserule my group has used, however, is that extremely good maneuver rolls (e.g. the dice come up all + and the defender rolls really badly) can result in two aspects instead of just one.  This only at the discretion of the GM, though, and there is no set number, in order to prevent players from trying to game this.

Also, if you can succeed on a +12 maneuver, you probably should have just been attacking in the first place, resulting in stress and consequences (which can then be tagged).  A strong enough attack to cause more than one consequence is definitely better than a maneuver.

[Discipol]

Note that maneuvers are different.
While they work as aspects, they are much more powerful in effect.

If you make a maneuver to throw glass dust in the eyes of the enemy, he will be Painfully Blinded.

As long as the maneuver doesn't get removed (somehow), it will stick to him(and his eye balls).

Him being blinded means he cannot target with a gun, he can't defend from an incoming attack if he is relying on sight, he can't soulgaze or be soulgazed, you can't tell the color of his eyes, etc

You might think this is kinda game breaking. Well, it is. I've won many battles debuffing the enemies. To think, an air evocation, of power 3, in the form of a little tornado, for only 1 exchange, was enough to blow a thaumaturgical ritual due to all the stuff there being blown. The caster had so much backlash, he couldn't deathcurse us since he had nothing left. Also, the caster of the evocation had 4 consequences, free to tag once on the victim, since she inflicted them.

That was a +10 for a kick to the face.

However, a maneuver can be removed in MANY ways, and the victim always gets an instant first save. The guy i threw glass at could have dodged with athletics, blocked it with Fists, or Weapon, he could have used Scholarship to notice the move, alertness to auto close his eyes or Resources to have a servant specifically payed to put his hand in front of his eyes when glass is thrown towards them.

Have fun making your enemies useless. Gloating is a free action.

[Belial666]

That's what I mean; how useless is the enemy going to be and does it depend on the power of the maneuver? BTW, I just made the IC post for which I needed that information. The group is fighting a small piece of a Hecatoncheires (greek myth abomination) and the melee guys needed some help;
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22978.msg1124651.html#msg1124651


It remains to be seen how the enemy will react and what we can actually do with the aspects from the spell, if any.

[devonapple]

Based on previous conversations, as well as clarifications on the whole free tag/invoke for effect/compel situation, my take is that a GM is generally encouraged to:

A) allow free tags (and regular Invokes) for +2 or a reroll (either for the player's benefit or the target's detriment)

B) allow free tags for an Invoke for Effect which either directly benefits the player

C) allow free tags for an Invoke for Effect which mildly restricts* the target (who may get a Fate Point)

D) allow free tags for an Invoke for Effect which clearly restricts* the target like a Compel (who gets a Fate Point)

E) when a free tag for an Invoke for Effect not only becomes a Compel but also has serious Plot Impact (such as Compelling multiple foes in order to allow a getaway), the GM is allowed to escalate and require one or more actual Fate Points from the player in order to make it work.

* The line between "mildly restricts" "Compel" and "serious Plot Impact" is going to change between tables, and even between conflicts.

Per Evil Hat, if you successfully land a Maneuver on a group of targets such that each one gets their own Aspect (they were all in the same ZOne or something), you don't have to pay *all* of them a Fate Point to Compel them to let you get away, but you're not getting that for free, either: a few Fate Points is what they recommend.

[Discipol]

Its up to you to describe the effect if you made it, or convince the DM that it works like you say.