Quick clarification question that came up on rpg.net:
Let's say you've got a situation where you've got three characters, A, B, and C. A is attacking B, and decides to invoke an aspect attached to C (we'll say for the sake of argument that the aspect is actually relevant).
So, in this case, A gets the bonus from the invoke. A is opposing B. C is uninvolved (but on A's side), except for their aspect being the one that is invoked.
Page 69 of the book states: _If the aspect you invoke is on someone else’s character sheet, including situation aspects attached to them, you give them the fate point you spent. They don’t actually get to use it until after the end of the scene, though. _
This would seem to imply that after the scene/Conflict was resolved, that C would gain a Fate Point. Is this correct/intended? It seems a bit odd, as generally you get Fate Points when you are inconvenienced in some way.
My previous understanding was that if your opponent invokes one of your aspects, you gain the FP at the end of the scene... IOW, for hostile invokes only.
If that's the rule as intended, it would be trivial to come up with aspects that are easily invokable by other PCs, and by doing so ensure that any "spent" FP were returned to the group as a whole after every scene. And that seems kind of broken based on my understanding.
The rule doesn't mention PC or NPC, but since NPC's done (by rule) remember any fate points from scene to scene except those gained by concession, it doesn't matter in practice if they get them or not.
So, the point of the rule is that if you invoke someone's aspect against them, they get paid. But consider that they don't get paid if you invoke your own aspects, a game aspect, or a situation aspect that's free-floating.
I would consider the aspect attached to C to be in that same space, and the fate point is just spent rather than given to B or C.
If the aspect you invoke is on someone else’s character sheet, including situation aspects attached to them, and the invoke is to their disadvantage, you give them the fate point you spent. They don’t actually get to use it until after the end of the scene, though.
I would add some parenthetical caveat to clarify that invoking a third party's aspect is treated just like invoking an unattached situation aspect, and doesn't give the person a fate point. (Except I would write it better than that.)
That also clears up a potential other misread: that if you invoke someone else's aspect to help them, they don't get the Fate Point. Which I have done with relationship-based aspects.
+Fred Hicks' writing would imply that in the above scenario, if B invoked C's aspect when opposing A, that C would (generally) get the FP at the end of the scene, as A and C are allied.
It's worth clarifying, but I'm hesitant to label it a true erratum: we're talking about a pretty edgy edge case, if anything.
I don't know if our errata page has a distinction for clarifications.
Ryan Macklin - January 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM -0500 - Updated: January 27, 2014 at 5:51 PM -0500
Weird edge case!
If invoking C's aspect against B puts C in a disadvantageous situation, then C does get the fate point from A. That's getting payout for having an aspect worked against you, even if indirectly (not unlike an indirect compel).
If it helps, use this totally informal bit: "Did an aspect on your character get invoked by someone else? Did that screw you over? No, we don't care if directly or indirectly screwed. It did? You gets paid, yo. It didn't? No coin."
Sure. So, in this case A is attacking B. B and C are on the same side of the Conflict. A invokes C's aspect against B (presuming that it's appropriate).
Would C get a Fate Point? Attacking his teammate is certainly not in C's best interests.
+Robert Hanz That's what we're saying, yes. Though I would strip out the "since he wants his buddy to not get Taken Out" bit. It's just "Is this bad for me? Yes. Pay me." The wants of a character aren't involved.
Also, my comment is the edited version. If you've read Mythender, you can probably see where I would have cursed in the rules. :)
Just to add: much as I can appreciate the value of the formal rubric, "aspect C" or whatever has no resemblance to an actual aspect, moving with fiction, in an instance of play at your table.
Like, me personally? Using your aspect to screw over one of your buddies would be something I'd judge on a highly situational basis and ad hoc, for whether that meant "bad for you" enough to earn you the point. There's no right way to read that, not really. If the invoke is on the action that takes your buddy out and leaves you massively outnumbered? Yeah, maybe you get the point. If all it means is that your buddy spends an extra fate point to shrug it off? Maybe you wouldn't.
If the situation attached to the real aspect makes people at the table go, "Oh, damn, that's a sick burn!" or whatever? Yeah, probably you'd get paid.
Don't let the formal interpretation with variables replace the gut-level call you'd make when those aspects actually mean something.
+Leonard Balsera I'd also add the "if someone thinks they're being clever and avoiding paying a fate point to the opposition by being a rules wonk, screw that noise." to it.
But that's a specific harshness to someone who is trying to use the rules to be a jerk, though saying that I'm sure would help those accidentally falling into that trap from doing so.
I'm trying to gather from context what Ryan's response was. I am apparently blocked by him, probably for (politely) suggesting that one of his posts wasn't very constructive. Was Fred concurring with him by adding the "and the invoke is to their disadvantage" clause? This is how I was assuming things would work when I read the scenario in the OP.
Yes, the consensus is that fate points are only issued if the person with the aspect on his character sheet is affected negatively by the invoke. If it affects an ally negatively then it might be worth a fate point if the group agrees it also affects the aspect's owner negatively. Otherwise it's as if any other free-floating situation aspect has been invoked and nobody gets the fate point.
The RPG.net thread prompted me to explain why the rule exists: it's there to create further opportunities to give players in need fate points. You don't do it for every invocation because that would bloat the FP economy, and without it we've seen times where compels weren't story-appropriate but there weren't enough FP in the economy.
+Robert Hanz And you won't find that in a lot of rules. Often, that's a distraction at best and a point of contention at worst. If we were to tell you every single time why a rule exists, we're breaking the flow of the game and often (though you might be surprised to hear this) its referencability and understandability.
That said, in this case we could have put it in somewhere as GM advice for when folks are down on FP. But in general that's why rules don't explain themselves (even when, yeah, sometimes that would help).
Does that make sense?
Ryan Macklin - January 28, 2014 at 6:15 PM -0500 - Updated: January 28, 2014 at 6:15 PM -0500
Also, that's not its only intent. It is a PvP rule as well, not for game balance but for a sense of scaling up (an effect if getting the FP post-conflict).
It's also a phenomenon fairly unique to RPGs that a common end user response to being told "do this" in the rules is to ask why or alter it by reflex, rather than to trust, like you would in any other medium of game, that the rule is designed that way on purpose and leads to some desirable effect, whether emergent or deliberate, when used in play.
It's possible that this observation is really jacking the thread, so apologies in advance.
+Ryan Macklin: I can see that, but I still think that in at least some cases, it would be useful as a guide. One of the things that I've seen is a C# style guide from Microsoft that has commentary added to it. That's an incredibly useful tool, and I would love to see an "annotated Fate" or the like.
To get back on topic (not that there's much more to say), one of the RPG.net commenters called this "hostile invoking," which is what I'm going to refer to it as for now on...or until some better term comes up. Something in the lexicon for this is handy, if only for quick communication.
I expect by the intent, since the impact of the invocation was to his (side's) favor, he should not.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't at my table.
I'm kind of curious if it's an oversight, or if there's some inner logic that I'm missing here.
If that's the rule as intended, it would be trivial to come up with aspects that are easily invokable by other PCs, and by doing so ensure that any "spent" FP were returned to the group as a whole after every scene. And that seems kind of broken based on my understanding.
So, the point of the rule is that if you invoke someone's aspect against them, they get paid. But consider that they don't get paid if you invoke your own aspects, a game aspect, or a situation aspect that's free-floating.
I would consider the aspect attached to C to be in that same space, and the fate point is just spent rather than given to B or C.
- Ryan
If the aspect you invoke is on someone else’s character sheet, including situation aspects attached to them, and the invoke is to their disadvantage, you give them the fate point you spent. They don’t actually get to use it until after the end of the scene, though.
The intended rule is that in that case they wouldn't get the FP, correct?
Which works for me, frankly.
I don't know if our errata page has a distinction for clarifications.
If invoking C's aspect against B puts C in a disadvantageous situation, then C does get the fate point from A. That's getting payout for having an aspect worked against you, even if indirectly (not unlike an indirect compel).
[This is per Lenny & I.]
"Did an aspect on your character get invoked by someone else? Did that screw you over? No, we don't care if directly or indirectly screwed. It did? You gets paid, yo. It didn't? No coin."
Would C get a Fate Point? Attacking his teammate is certainly not in C's best interests.
And I totally think more RPG rules should be written in that style. It'd probably end up with fewer needed clarifications :)
Also, my comment is the edited version. If you've read Mythender, you can probably see where I would have cursed in the rules. :)
Like, me personally? Using your aspect to screw over one of your buddies would be something I'd judge on a highly situational basis and ad hoc, for whether that meant "bad for you" enough to earn you the point. There's no right way to read that, not really. If the invoke is on the action that takes your buddy out and leaves you massively outnumbered? Yeah, maybe you get the point. If all it means is that your buddy spends an extra fate point to shrug it off? Maybe you wouldn't.
If the situation attached to the real aspect makes people at the table go, "Oh, damn, that's a sick burn!" or whatever? Yeah, probably you'd get paid.
Don't let the formal interpretation with variables replace the gut-level call you'd make when those aspects actually mean something.
But that's a specific harshness to someone who is trying to use the rules to be a jerk, though saying that I'm sure would help those accidentally falling into that trap from doing so.
When I explain the more hard-to-explain hockey rules, I start with the problems they solve and what would happen if the rules didn't exist.
That said, in this case we could have put it in somewhere as GM advice for when folks are down on FP. But in general that's why rules don't explain themselves (even when, yeah, sometimes that would help).
Does that make sense?
It's possible that this observation is really jacking the thread, so apologies in advance.
(Here's the C# one: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Covering-Microsoft-Development-ebook/dp/B004BSFKXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390952657&sr=8-1&keywords=c%23+programming+annotated)
+Leonard Balsera: Yeah, and that's kind of puzzling to me.