I can't understand how curses or mass effect maneuvers (via a spell) would work

[BladeMaster0182]

Okay, I'm still reading through Vol 1, but I'm really confused about something the game is just NOT explaining for me: mass effect maneuvers, via spells, or curses and any other negative aspect on NPCs. Let me clarify with two examples:

Example 1: Joe Wizard decides to use Spirit magic to cause a blinding light to fill a zone giving all in it who fail their defense rolls, a negative aspect of Blinded By the Light.

Now I get that Joe Wizard can tag this or hand it off to his assassin friend to invoke against one of the NPCs for a +2 on, let's say, a Stealth roll or an attack roll. Joe Wizard could also compel NPC #1 to attack his best friend and lifetime companion NPC #2 (who bonded over having the same first and middle name). Here's my question, what about NPC #2? Unless Joe Wizard wants to dump a fate point to compel all of the NPCs to miss or misfire, NPC #2 has no penalty on attacking, even though he SHOULD be blinded, at least partly so.

Example 2: Using a modified example in the book, Joe Wizard decides to cast the curse/maneuver Can't Think Straight on a performer before he gets on stage to foul him up.

Now I'm ASSUMING he can spend a fate point to compel said performer to foul up on the stage. Now here is my confusion, can other PCs, who's characters are aware of this curse, spend Fate Points to compel this curse even though they aren't there? Assuming the curse lasts until sunrise, do the PCs have to continuously spend FP (say at one per scene) to maintain the lack of concentration? Shouldn't the fact that Joe Wizard spend several FP to invoke aspects JUST to get the curse to be cast (filling the power deficit) count towards something?

In both cases, do I the DM have to compel my NPCs and likewise award my NPCs Fate Points when, let's face it, they're probably going to die in battle?

I like Aspects, I do, but they seem not to matter unless Fate Points are being spent on them.

[UmbraLux]

Example 1: Joe Wizard decides to use Spirit magic to cause a blinding light to fill a zone giving all in it who fail their defense rolls, a negative aspect of Blinded By the Light.

Now I get that Joe Wizard can tag this or hand it off to his assassin friend to invoke against one of the NPCs for a +2 on, let's say, a Stealth roll or an attack roll. Joe Wizard could also compel NPC #1 to attack his best friend and lifetime companion NPC #2 (who bonded over having the same first and middle name). Here's my question, what about NPC #2? Unless Joe Wizard wants to dump a fate point to compel all of the NPCs to miss or misfire, NPC #2 has no penalty on attacking, even though he SHOULD be blinded, at least partly so.

The book suggests charging some number of fate points >1 and <number of victims to invoke a zone wide aspect.  I try to be a bit more generous and automatically compel (for the price of their free tag) everyone it makes sense based on the situation...including any PCs in the zone.

Example 2: Using a modified example in the book, Joe Wizard decides to cast the curse/maneuver Can't Think Straight on a performer before he gets on stage to foul him up.

Now I'm ASSUMING he can spend a fate point to compel said performer to foul up on the stage. Now here is my confusion, can other PCs, who's characters are aware of this curse, spend Fate Points to compel this curse even though they aren't there? Assuming the curse lasts until sunrise, do the PCs have to continuously spend FP (say at one per scene) to maintain the lack of concentration? Shouldn't the fact that Joe Wizard spend several FP to invoke aspects JUST to get the curse to be cast (filling the power deficit) count towards something?

A compel has an important narrative affect...so compelling the actor should result in either a major screw up or a series of minor ones.  Either way the others probably won't need to throw additional fate points at it.

That said, fate points are a player resource with metagame affects.  They aren't character resources.  Consequently, the other players should be able to spend fate on the tag if they wish to do so.

In both cases, do I the DM have to compel my NPCs and likewise award my NPCs Fate Points when, let's face it, they're probably going to die in battle?

I would.  That said, I'll throw minor NPCs' fate points into a common pot.  Only major NPCs get tracked separately.  It means fate from compels against one group of mooks may get used by another...but fate is a metagame resource.

I like Aspects, I do, but they seem not to matter unless Fate Points are being spent on them.

Compels and Invokes for Effect are how you get the most mileage from a single fate point.  Take your Blinding Light from above, I'd probably compel that to prevent ranged attacks (they can't see well enough) until they remove the aspect from themselves.  Depending on rolls, that could last anywhere from one exchange to the entire combat.

[sinker]

First thing is umbralux is right about how compels should be treated. One compel should not cause a mook to miss once (ok, maybe sometimes it should, but only when that once is important), it should create a greater difficulty that lasts as long as the aspect is relevant. Read the section on weak compels on page YS104. Of note same goes for players, so don't let them take your fate points and then run against the compel two seconds later (I have had issues with that in my group before).

Secondly you have to realize that DFRPG is very abstract as a whole, and is more about telling an interesting story than about simulating the real world. Look at fiction as your example. Without protective gear and training most people can do very little in a burning building, however in fiction people often have whole conflicts take place within a conflagration. In these stories the fire will be important one minute (blocking an exit or burning someone/something) but other times it fades into the background and the characters often interact as if there is no fire (or at least as if it is a far off threat not an immanent and ever-present obstacle). This is the model that we're emulating when we place an aspect of "Burning building" on something. It should be active when it's important to the story (I.E. when invoked/compelled) but not a hindrance to the story when unimportant. Does that help you understand why aspects can be so unreliable/inconstant?

[Belial666]

There's a different way to perform a blinding light spell, you know; Offensive Block vs Perception at X shifts, zone-wide +2 shifts, duration Y shifts. The people affected can't see unless they roll awareness higher than the block. And as long as they can't see, they are surprised by any attacks in your group.

Blocks can similarly be used to reflect lots of effects in that way as they prevent specific things from happening. I.e. a luck curse could be done as a thaumaturgy block vs actions where luck could be conceivably involved, with enough shifts in duration to make it permanent. A lot less harmful than the offensive bad luck curse, this one simply prevents you from performing actions but does not harm you. I.e. if you want to walk around, you find yourself inexplicably slipping. If you want to fire a gun, you either miss or the gun jams. If you want to use a computer, that computer gets momentarily hacked or generates a general protection fault and so on.

[ways and means]

I run spells like blinding light as a manouvre against everyone in the zone (the same way a zone wide attack is an attack against everyone in the zone) , which means everyone in the zone individually defends and if they fail their defense each have their own negative aspect which can be compelled.

[mstorer3772]

Example 1: Joe Wizard decides to use Spirit magic to cause a blinding light to fill a zone giving all in it who fail their defense rolls, a negative aspect of Blinded By the Light.

Now I get that Joe Wizard can tag this or hand it off to his assassin friend to invoke against one of the NPCs for a +2 on, let's say, a Stealth roll or an attack roll. Joe Wizard could also compel NPC #1 to attack his best friend and lifetime companion NPC #2 (who bonded over having the same first and middle name).

Keep in mind that you can't use your free Tag to compel, only to invoke.  If it's sticky, anyone interested can start throwing around fate points for compels & invokes, but the free Tag may only be Invoked.

[zenten]

Keep in mind that you can't use your free Tag to compel, only to invoke.  If it's sticky, anyone interested can start throwing around fate points for compels & invokes, but the free Tag may only be Invoked.

You can use an Invoke for Effect to trigger a compel, starting it off with your Tag, according to Fred Hicks.

[sinker]

Agreed. A tag is capable of everything that one can do spending a fate point on an aspect. In situations like that it is up to the GM to provide the extra fate points as necessary (I.E. the GM negotiates the compel and provides a fate point to the compelled).

[Richard_Chilton]

The person who declares an aspect can tag it the first time for free.  Which is why maneuvers work even when you're out of FATE points.

Richard

[mstorer3772]

Okay, what Fred & Co may have intended for tagging, and What The Book Says differ here.

Allow me.

A tag is a special move that you may be able to
do when you’re invoking aspects other than your
own. 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.

Not "invoke or compel", not "use":  Just "invoke". 

If you look at the TOC of chapter 7 "Aspects", you'll see the following:

Aspects
  What Are Aspects?
  Using Aspects
    Invoking Aspects
    Compelling Aspects
  Using Others Aspects
    Invoking Others Aspects
    Compelling Others Aspects
...

So there are two things you can do with an aspect.  You can Invoke it, or Compel it.  Tagging can only Invoke.

Now, there are two kinds of invoking, there's "tweak the dice (reroll, +2 to an existing one)", and "Invoke for Effect".

You can also invoke an aspect for effect, using
it to declare a fact or circumstance that would
be of benefit to your character. This costs a
fate point like any other invocation does. For
example, you could invoke your character’s
Warden Connections aspect to declare that
there’s a Warden actually in town.

And Invoking Others Aspects says this about invoking for effect:

Invocations on other aspects can also be done
for effect, allowing you to use someone else’s
aspect or a scene aspect to make a declaration.
All the guidelines for invoking for effect (page 99)
apply here.

Allowing someone to invoke for effect to create a compel negates the differences between invokes and compels.  But there clearly is a difference.

So the RAW and Fred are different.  There's nothing wrong with that, but realize that there IS a difference.  Even if that's what Fred Meant, it's still not what The Rules Say.  If an Errata sheet or new version comes out that changes this, so be it... but DFRPG 1.0 has a specific meaning.

So based on my literal reading of The RAW, my players (should I ever get some... sheesh) would not be able to Tag a "gut stab" consequence for a compel, but could Tag it to declare that there's enough collectable blood on the scene to use for thaumaturgic targeting.

[Becq]

So the RAW and Fred are different.  There's nothing wrong with that, but realize that there IS a difference.  Even if that's what Fred Meant, it's still not what The Rules Say.  If an Errata sheet or new version comes out that changes this, so be it... but DFRPG 1.0 has a specific meaning.

Not really; rather there's quite a log of wiggle room built into the system by the use of ambiguous definitions.  Consider, for example, the paragraph right after the one you quoted on Invoking for Effect:

Different groups will have different tastes regarding the potential scope of invoking for effect, and your group should talk this over to see where each player stands. GMs are encouraged to be fairly liberal in this regard, provided that the player’s desired effect is consistent with the aspect and the overall sensibilities of the game.

Add that to the previous paragraph, and you end up with the following result: Invoking for Effect can result in ... just about anything, so long as the group agrees its reasonable.  Fred's comments on the matter basically resolved to this, if I recall more-or-less correctly:

The player Invokes an (eg, scene) aspect for Effect, describing how the aspect would cause something bad to happen to the NPC(s).  If the GM agrees that it is Compel-worthy, he then initiates a Compel against the target(s).  The player isn't initiating the Compel, he is creating an Effect.  The GM is initiating a Compel based on that Effect.

Note that the GM is allowed to Compel whenever he feels its appropriate; the Invoke for Effect is just providing a trigger.

[zenten]

I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between the GM agreeing that the effect is compel worthy, and the GM being convinced by a player that a character should be compelled by a given aspect, with no tag spent.

[Becq]

I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between the GM agreeing that the effect is compel worthy, and the GM being convinced by a player that a character should be compelled by a given aspect, with no tag spent.

"With no tag spent"?  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  If you're talking about Fate changing hands, then keep in mind that whether or not the player is using a tag to get a free Invoke, it's the GM that's actually running the Compel.  This means that the Compel-ee will be getting Fate for the Compel, even if the Invoke that triggered it was a free tag.  This is different that if a player directly Compels an NPC -- for example, if a player inflicts a consequence on an NPC, he can later tag that consequence, and no Fate is spent or earned.

Here's the Fred post on the subject, by the way:

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

[UmbraLux]

I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between the GM agreeing that the effect is compel worthy, and the GM being convinced by a player that a character should be compelled by a given aspect, with no tag spent.

That's decided by who wins the social contest between player and GM!   

Regarding the subject of terminology in DRRPG - I'm trying to "just let it go".  It's undoubtedly obtuse, fuzzy, and open to interpretation.  Not worth the stress to get hung up on it anymore.  Just going to play and accept that different people will interpret things differently.  At least that's my intent... 

[zenten]

Becq:  OK, here's an example.  I shoot an NPC, and he gets the consequence "wounded leg".  In the first scenario I use up the free tag to initiate an invoke for effect, and I suggest that the GM compel the NPC to be unable to move zones due to the leg injury.  In the second scenario I suggest that the GM compel the NPC to be unable to move zones due to the leg injury, but I still have a free tag to use when invoking to shoot the NPC (reflecting his difficulty in dodging the bullets).  Why use up that free tag?