Maneuvers

[cold_breaker]

ok, sadly this became a learning example for me as well.

So, essentially, when you maneuver, you are placing an aspect on the scene. The player gets one free tag, but otherwise it is still an aspect until it is removed. Aspects are easy to remove generally - they just require an action. They can be compelled by the GM for additional effect by anyone (The GM, other players paying an fate point to use it to their advantage, etc.) as long as it makes sense to compel it. So, in the example of 'Prone' - you could be blocked from doing any action that wouldn't make sense while prone, but could conceivably still do actions that wouldn't be blocked by being prone. Saying an action is blocked by being prone is essentially compelling that aspect - meaning you get a fate point by not removing the aspect and standing up each round so long as the aspect was sufficiently hurting the player.

I'd probably reword my above statement if someone really rolled well on a maneuver.

Would you ever allow removing an aspect to be part of a secondary action or another action? I'm thinking in the vain of drawing a samarai sword and attacking with it at the same time. Or a smart player being knocked prone, then maneuvering to get up in a flanking position.

[Haru]

Drawing a sword is not an action in the sense of fate. It can be an action, if you draw it, for example, to intimidate someone. In that case, it would be a maneuver to tag on a subsequent intimidation attempt.

But you don't have to do an action to draw your sword. Unless it has an impact on the story. So if there is a signature move you draw your sword with, that is part of your fighting style, you can absolutely do that as an action. Otherwise, you can just attack with your sword from the sheath. But you won't get a bonus from drawing then, either.

[cold_breaker]

Drawing a sword is not an action in the sense of fate. It can be an action, if you draw it, for example, to intimidate someone. In that case, it would be a maneuver to tag on a subsequent intimidation attempt.

But you don't have to do an action to draw your sword. Unless it has an impact on the story. So if there is a signature move you draw your sword with, that is part of your fighting style, you can absolutely do that as an action. Otherwise, you can just attack with your sword from the sheath. But you won't get a bonus from drawing then, either.

Yeah, but you're skirting the actual question. Lets say someone is knocked prone. They decide their an accomplished martial-artist, so they don't want to just get up, they should do it in such a way as it gives them some sort of advantage. So, they pull a breakdance-esque move to bicyclekick in the air in order to force people to dodge and be off balance while they get back up. Would you allow it? Obviously you'd set the difficulty a little higher - or else designate 'getting up' to be a secondary action, but would you allow it, or would you force the player to only get up as the action? Would this be dependent on the situation as well - aka are some maneuvers narratively better than others?

[Taran]

that would be paying off the compel

GM:  you're prone, so you can't effectively attack.  I compel you to only do a defensive maneuver

PC:  I'm a martial artist so I'm paying off that compel.  Instead, I do a break-dance move and trip the guy so that he's on the ground too.  I'm going to try to grapple him in the next exchange...

[cold_breaker]

that would be paying off the compel

GM:  you're prone, so you can't effectively attack.  I compel you to only do a defensive maneuver

PC:  I'm a martial artist so I'm paying off that compel.  Instead, I do a break-dance move and trip the guy so that he's on the ground too.  I'm going to try to grapple him in the next exchange...

So, you effectively have three options.

A) Get up, avoiding any compel and eliminating the aspect
B) Submit to the compel, gaining a fate point but being restricted in what you can do by the aspect.
C) Pay off the compel, losing a fate point but effectively ignoring the aspect and removing it from future rounds?

[Taran]

I'm a bit more of a hard-ass for aspects

Maybe you paid off the compel, but you still haven't removed the aspect.  If you pay off the compel and still don't try to remove the aspect, you are still subject to future compels, depending on the situation. 

It makes maneuvers actually have weight and encourages players (and npc's) to try to remove the aspect.

[cold_breaker]

I'm a bit more of a hard-ass for aspects

Maybe you paid off the compel, but you still haven't removed the aspect.  If you pay off the compel and still don't try to remove the aspect, you are still subject to future compels, depending on the situation. 

It makes maneuvers actually have weight and encourages players (and npc's) to try to remove the aspect.

OK, my gut feeling is that this wouldn't actually be buying off the compel - just a supplemental action. In other words, you attack and get up in the same round. You technically take a -1 to the roll to get up, but whether you actually roll is questionable anyways. Normally I'd say a roll to get up is a -1 or -2, but if you're surrounded by sword weilding maniacs, I might raise the difficulty and force you to roll for it. If you manage the get up roll, it's assumed you succeed and avoid the compel completely. If you fail, you don't and must either change your attack to something the compel would allow or buy off the compel and attack anyways.

I guess the nature of the compel is up to the GM. It could be 'take no offensive actions' or 'you can't do anything combat wise' - as opposed to the aspect which is fixed.

[Mr. Death]

The way I would resolve it is paying off the compel means he can attack--but the effort he's making to attack while prone/getting up is still represented by the aspect, and can be compelled still.

So in this example, he's prone, buys off the compel to attack, but on his opponent's round, he can still invoke the aspect to say something like, "Okay, while he's busy fancy spinning and all, he's not able to put as much effort into dodging, so I'm getting a +2 to shoot his ass."

[cold_breaker]

The way I would resolve it is paying off the compel means he can attack--but the effort he's making to attack while prone/getting up is still represented by the aspect, and can be compelled still.

So in this example, he's prone, buys off the compel to attack, but on his opponent's round, he can still invoke the aspect to say something like, "Okay, while he's busy fancy spinning and all, he's not able to put as much effort into dodging, so I'm getting a +2 to shoot his ass."

But after that, he's up and the aspect is gone. Unless you say that the aspect remains since everyones actions are technically simultaneous. Makes sense realistically, but it's a headache narratively.

Am I right to assume though that in this case we're getting away from hard and fast rules, and headed into GM discretion land? As in, it's up to the GMs discretion as to how much effort is required to remove an aspect? Some might not require any action while others could require progressively more? ('dizzy' or 'off balance' might go away naturally after around, 'knocked prone' would require a supplemental action that could even happen before your main action and would technically require a basic athletics roll to accomplish, and something like 'pinned to the wall with a dagger' might require a primary action?)

[Haru]

I don't think actually compelling is always necessary. Certain aspects demand certain types of actions, even without a compel. If you are "on fire", you are burning, your immediate reaction should be to do something about it. If you are on the floor, you need to get up before you can do any running around.
That's not the same as being compelled to do something. It's just a logical conclusion of the story. You just can't do everything from any position you are in.

However, if that maneuver forces you down a specific way, and that's to your detriment, that's a compel. But I wouldn't count "prone" as an aspect that's going into that direction. Compelling "prone" in a conflict would, to me, mean you can no longer try to stand up. But why would "prone" make you do that? Now a "busted knee" could work for that. As an aspect, it just means you knee hurts like hell and your opponent can tag it to say he can use that to his advantage, because you are reacting slower or because you are favoring the leg. If you compel it, you can't use your leg at all. The other guy runs away? You can try and crawl after him, but you're not getting far.

As for the actions: creating a an aspect with a maneuver is an action, removing it should be, too. Unless you have a stunt or power to allow you otherwise.

[cold_breaker]

I don't think actually compelling is always necessary. Certain aspects demand certain types of actions, even without a compel. If you are "on fire", you are burning, your immediate reaction should be to do something about it. If you are on the floor, you need to get up before you can do any running around.
That's not the same as being compelled to do something. It's just a logical conclusion of the story. You just can't do everything from any position you are in.

However, if that maneuver forces you down a specific way, and that's to your detriment, that's a compel.

I see where your going, but I have to disagree with you somewhat. I think 'on fire' is a weird case where the compel would be to put out the fire or take an X stress hit, and then only if putting out the fire would be to the players detriment - like in the middle of a fight. You're right though, like any compel, there's only a fate point if it provides a clear disadvantage to the player.

As for how much effort it is to remove an aspect created by a maneuver - I think I disagree. After all, on the other side of the equation, there are maneuvers that are a heck of a lot easier to accomplish than to remove - locking someone in handcuffs perhaps? pushing them into a pit? Splashing red paint on someone?

[Taran]

if the maneuver is sticky, it lasts the entire scene unless:

1. you remove it, which requires a counter-maneuver equal to the difficulty it was created (or possibly less, if the situations makes sense)or by an opposed roll
2. It no longer makes sense.

- I see hand-cuffs as a grapple set at a specific block rating
- How difficult it is depends on how well the maneuver was made...see above
  Red paint.  Let's say I spray red paint on someone and do a maneuver at 3.  That probably means you hardly got hit by the paint and can easily wipe it off or cover it up.  If I spray red paint and succeed with a 10, that probably means I've completely covered someone with paint...good luck getting it off any time soon.  They have to succeed at a 10 shift counter-maneuver before the aspect goes away.

[cold_breaker]

if the maneuver is sticky, it lasts the entire scene unless:

1. you remove it, which requires a counter-maneuver equal to the difficulty it was created (or possibly less, if the situations makes sense)or by an opposed roll
2. It no longer makes sense.

- I see hand-cuffs as a grapple set at a specific block rating
- How difficult it is depends on how well the maneuver was made...see above
  Red paint.  Let's say I spray red paint on someone and do a maneuver at 3.  That probably means you hardly got hit by the paint and can easily wipe it off or cover it up.  If I spray red paint and succeed with a 10, that probably means I've completely covered someone with paint...good luck getting it off any time soon.  They have to succeed at a 10 shift counter-maneuver before the aspect goes away.

Meh. I'll agree that setting difficulty based on how well it was applied is a good start, but I think I'm gonna reserve the right to say 'no, that aspect isn't hard to remove' or 'that aspect is going to be super hard to remove' based on the circumstances, mostly to reward my players for clever tactics or punish them for dumb ones. I could go through the arguments as to how the paint can counts as a weapon: 2 for the purpose of the maneuver, or how they've accidentally used an aspect of the scene if you want. Really I'm just going by what makes sense. If something wouldn't work very well in real life, I wont let it be effective because of 'game mechanics.'

[UmbraLux]

Have to agree.  Take the Knocked Prone example, standing back up is easy unless someone is actively trying to keep you down.  So removing the aspect (i.e. standing up) is often going to be either automatic or a resisted roll.  It's probably not outside the realm of imagination but I'm having difficulty coming up with a situation where the difficulty of standing up is related to how well you were knocked down. 

[Stirge]

To my understanding, a player can Maneuever someone 'Prone' but it won't stop them from moving by itself - that's definitely a Block action.

That player can tag 'Prone' in rolls where it makes sense (like attacking them) - if the aspect is fragile it'll just fall off but if it's sticky you can continue to tag it for the duration.  But if they want their maneuver to keep their enemy on the ground they have to attempt to Compel them (at the cost of 1 Fate point), but if their opponent pays one back they can take actions like moving with no extra hassle.  If they end up moving and the player cared for accuracy they may want to change the wording of the placed aspect to 'Dazed' or 'Off Balance' or similar.

The book gives a similar example with 'Blinding' on page 208.  All it does is create an aspect that can be tagged, if the player wants it to do more they can compel what they want to happen, with the GM's/group's permission (more on pg. 107).