Tagging consequences?

[mstorer3772]

I was pouring through my spiffy PDF copy of YS earlier on my phone and saw The Four Ways To Create Aspects... One was "consequences".

 The tagging portion of the rules says any time you create an aspect you get to tag it. 

That seems a bit overpowering...  But then: pain hurts.  (No mater what that Walton guy will tell you)

Am I interpreting this correctly?

[Haru]

Yep, you can tag a consequence. If you can land the first blow (that matters, anyway), you have a pretty strong advantage over your opponent, and the free tag is a good way to represent that.

[sinker]

If you get the teamwork going you can even get this sort of spiral of consequences, where the first guy inflicts a minor consequence, and then passes the tag to the second guy who then inflicts more stress so the enemy takes a moderate, and then the tag gets passed on to the next guy, etc. It can be quite brutal.

[ARedthorn]

yes, but those consequences won't always be visible or available to players to use. "Bruised", for example, might not be readily visible, while "My Leg Isn't Supposed to Bend That Way" probably is. Since consequences are supposed to be appropriate to what's causing them, my players are usually able to guess them- and the system has allowances for them doing exactly that.
Once someone's started taking consequences, the fight usually goes downhill for them very fast- and that's appropriate too. My players need to learn to do things like make concessions and live to fight another day when that happens to them, but they're still fighting in a kind of DnD mentality where they throw everything they have at a threat because that's just what you do. I have yet to make a serious issue of it, because with only a little fudging I've managed to swing the fight their way, and keep the game fun (which is my job), and the alternative felt like it might have been... problematic.

You got it right- but be ready for what that means when you're on the wrong end of it.

[DFJunkie]

yes, but those consequences won't always be visible or available to players to use. "Bruised", for example, might not be readily visible, while "My Leg Isn't Supposed to Bend That Way" probably is. Since consequences are supposed to be appropriate to what's causing them, my players are usually able to guess them- and the system has allowances for them doing exactly that.

Aspects, including those that occur as the result of inflicting a consequence, have an impact at the narrative level and are manipulated by the players, not the characters.  When the actions of a PC create an aspect it is the player that chooses how to use the free tag, including passing it to another player regardless of character knowledge.  If the tag exists, and there's a way that the aspect in question could affect the outcome of the recipient's actions, the receiving player can make use of it.

[sinker]

Additionally that sort of aspect "policing" can lead to poor aspect creation, as the players begin to look for "better" aspects that they can use more freely (and then use those aspects over and over) and not aspects that are actually better for the story.

Of course I'm not saying that's what would always happen. I'm sure more experienced gamers that were more interested in the story than their individual character's gain/welfare wouldn't have that reaction, but since that's a tough attitude to develop, I would assume the former rather than the latter.

[EdgeOfDreams]

The above posters have the right idea.  And if it seems too powerful for players, just remember that it works both ways.  Especially NPC's who have few or no fate points should be abusing every free tag they can get.

In my group, in fact, it is common for a player to ask at the start of their combat round, "So, any targets with untagged aspects on them?" and will focus-fire those targets.  It's just good tactics.

[sinker]

In my group, in fact, it is common for a player to ask at the start of their combat round, "So, any targets with untagged aspects on them?" and will focus-fire those targets.  It's just good tactics.

I'm... not sure about this... Theoretically he should be assessing/declaring/maneuvering to get those tags, See YS106:

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

So unless he rolls to create/discover those aspects, there's no tag.

[Haru]

Yes there is, if the other players allow the use of their free tags. So it is a good tactic to let the faster players set up aspects for the hard hitter to tag on his attack.

[EdgeOfDreams]

I'm... not sure about this... Theoretically he should be assessing/declaring/maneuvering to get those tags, See YS106:

So unless he rolls to create/discover those aspects, there's no tag.

Go look in the combat rules about consequences. There's specifically a line that states an attacker who creates a consequence on an opponent earns a free tag on that consequence which can be passed off to allies.  The roll to create the aspect was the attack roll.

[mstorer3772]

I'm... not sure about this... Theoretically he should be assessing/declaring/maneuvering to get those tags, See YS106:

So unless he rolls to create/discover those aspects, there's no tag.

And the list on 105 reads:

There are several ways you can gain access to an aspect that is on another character or scene:

• Discover it via assessment (page 115)
• Create it with a declaration (page 116)
• Establish it with a maneuver (page 207)
• Inflict a consequence (page 203)

(additional formatting not included, YMMV, not applicable in all areas, void where prohibited, do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball)

That line you've quoted is what started this thread in the first place.

[sinker]

I think you guys misunderstood. I was responding to the specific notion that anyone would walk into a conflict and ask what tags are available to them without any action on their part (or the part of their allies who could hand off those tags presumably). As stated here.

In my group, in fact, it is common for a player to ask at the start of their combat round, "So, any targets with untagged aspects on them?" and will focus-fire those targets.  It's just good tactics.

Otherwise I think my opinion on tagging consequences was made clear much earlier in the thread.

[EdgeOfDreams]

I think you guys misunderstood. I was responding to the specific notion that anyone would walk into a conflict and ask what tags are available to them without any action on their part (or the part of their allies who could hand off those tags presumably). As stated here.

Otherwise I think my opinion on tagging consequences was made clear much earlier in the thread.

Ah, I see what you mean.

No, if someone new entered mid-fight, we probably wouldn't have them immediately know all the consequences.  The context I was talking about it when someone's second or third turn comes up, and they haven't been paying enough attention to the fight, so they ask the GM whether or not any of the consequences they or their allies inflicted over the last round or so are still untagged.

[noclue]

The tagging portion of the rules says any time you create an aspect you get to tag it. 

That seems a bit overpowering...  But then: pain hurts.  (No mater what that Walton guy will tell you)

Why does that seem overpowering? It's no different from an aspect created by a maneuver, cept it's probably harder to give someone a Consequence.

[DFJunkie]

No, if someone new entered mid-fight, we probably wouldn't have them immediately know all the consequences. 

The distinction needs to be drawn between character knowledge and player knowledge.  If a free tag is passed to a player whose character is unaware of the aspect in question that player would need to explain how the aspect comes into play without the character being aware of it.  If there's no way for the aspect to come into play if the character isn't aware of it then it isn't a viable aspect to be used in that situation.  It's a minor distinction, but an important one.