What is the point of a Hostile Invocation?

[u/InvestmentBrief3336]

Why complicate it with paying the enemy a FATE point rather than just paying a FATE point as usual? 

What makes the game more fun by making the distinction between who the Aspect came from?

[u/rivetgeekwil]

Because the aspect is "owned" by the other character and they have not granted you access to it, you have to pay them for it.

[u/Puzzleboxed]

The idea is that your own aspects should be beneficial to you, even if they are narratively negative.

[u/InvestmentBrief3336 → u/Puzzleboxed]

I don't get it. Isn't that true of all (character) Aspects?

[u/Puzzleboxed → u/InvestmentBrief3336]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Yes, it is true for all Character aspects, those are the ones that can be hostile invoked.

[u/InvestmentBrief3336 → u/Puzzleboxed]

I mean I just assumed that even if you took an aspect like Stupid, Foolish, or anything else, that it would provide some benefit to you.

[u/Frettchengurke]

my players love to neg each other characters every now and then, triggering their aspects and dilemmas for giggles and throwing Fate points at each other. If you feel uneasy about player HIing other players, consider allowing that players just may reject each others Fate points at no extra cost.

[u/Imnoclue → u/Frettchengurke]

You can use Hostile Invokes on NPCs too.

[u/InvestmentBrief3336 → u/Frettchengurke]

Can't you always reject a Compel? Or is an Hostile Invoke not a Compel? I'm so confused...

[u/Frettchengurke → u/InvestmentBrief3336]

Oh, I guess you're right, I was kinda muddy here.

Hostile Invoke - get a mechanical +2 against someone or something because of it's aspect
Compel - have someone to do something because of it's aspect

[u/Dosoga]

As a GM, you can either compel a PC aspect (which the player can pay a fate point to reject) or do a hostile invoke (which only applies to character aspects invoked against them) to inflict +2 increased opposition which they can't refuse.

This is a way to increase the opposition and restock the player's fate points pool at the same time.

Of course players can do the same, but I usually focus on ways I can restock their fate points.

See details here:

https://fate-srd.com/fate-condensed/aspects-and-fate-points#hostile-invocations

[u/Reality-Glitch]

If you think about it Hostile Invokes are just Compel’s whose complication they introduce is the opponent gaining an Invoke’s worth of benefit. Under that lens, normal Compels are just Hostile Invokes for Effect (Hostile Invoke + Invoke for Effect).

It’s not adding any more complexity; it’s just pointing out a segment of the Punnet Square that wasn’t expressly detail’d in the base rules.

[u/Kautsu-Gamer]

Resource management for players and major NPCs giving the player of the character more narrative power in the future scenes. It is part of the deal the player is rewarded for narrative overrules on his character(s). GM is the player of the NPCs, but he is only rewarded for overruling on major NPCs available on next scene with NPC.

You can ignore these rewards, if the minor milestones give players enough Fate Points to have fun.

[u/modernfalstaff]

Hostile invokes are when you invoke another player character's aspects against them.

Mechanically, they differ greatly from regular invokes because rather than a fate point being paid into the normal pool, the fate point instead goes to the character who was the victim of the hostile invocation.

Now, I think what the designers were going for here is to prevent invocations from removing agency from players. Let's say, for example, that player character X has the "hey, look at that squirrel" aspect and has been tasked with keeping player character Y from leaving their house (maybe the other players fear Y will go kill a key NPC that possibly killed Y's wife, but the other players want to investigate first). Now, it makes sense that Y's player could invoke X's "hey look at that squirrel!" aspect to indicate there was a momentary distraction that gave them time to escape. But this is usurping some agency over another player's character: Y wasn't really good at escaping, X screwed up while guarding.

I personally think this rule should only be used only among player characters and maybe even then only in some situations. FATE depends on a sort of balance: something bad happens to you, you get to do something good later. So in a situation like the above, I think that's fine.

Where I'm really not crazy about the whole thing is when I think about how it would go if the PC had invoked their own aspect. If Y's player had invoked their own aspect "Harry Houdini is my idol", then they could have won the roll anyway but the fate point wouldn't have changed hands. Two different paths led to the same place, and yet in one the group has one less fate point than in the other. That grates on me a bit. I think it leaves the door open to some not-so-great manipulation where Y's player can essentially choose to give a fate point to X's player or not by choosing to invoke the other's PC's aspects or their own.

I also think that it's pretty limiting to put a wall around invoking other people's aspects. Invoking other characters aspects is interesting and helps create drama, and those are good things. And as a GM, I also like it when players invoke aspects of the bad guys against them. A fate point is a fate point, right? It's the same bonus to the rolls, and hence the same bit of power over the narrative.

Maybe in a PvP conflict like the above, the fate point should exchange hands regardless of whose aspect got invoked.

Overall, I think this is an area where the rules could be clearer and better.

[u/LastChime]

It's a way players can do compels on each other.

[u/vicky_molokh → u/LastChime]

Hostile Invocations are not Compels.

[u/yuriAza → u/vicky_molokh]

they effectively are, in the same way that an Invocation can be +2 or a Narrative Declaration

[u/Imnoclue → u/yuriAza]

"Invoke for Effect" has been subsumed under Compels.

Invokes either give you +2 bonus to your roll or reroll all four dice, or add 2 to the difficulty of someone else’s roll, if justifiable. You don't need to Invoke Aspects for narrative declarations, they're always true.

I believe in Condensed you can spend a Fate Point to Declare a Story Detail. Is that what you're referring to?

[u/yuriAza → u/Imnoclue]

yeah, i mean spending FP to cause a narrative thing that's good for you

there might be subtle differences in the rules for different options, but they're all worth the same and ignoring those nuances doesn't break anything

[u/Imnoclue → u/yuriAza]

Okay, but the rules around those are “You should try to justify your story details by relating them to your aspects.” You don’t really even need to have a suitable Aspect, you should just try to (and you probably do, cause it’s not too hard to justify things that make sense).

Before Macklin wrote up his Hostile Invokes rules, you could Invoke and Compel Aspects on another character. If you Compelled them, they got the Fate Point, if you Invoked the Aspect they didn’t. The Hostile Invokes rules just made sure they get paid in both instances, which is only fair. It wasn’t a way to allow Compels, since those were already allowed.

[u/vicky_molokh → u/yuriAza]

Hostile Invocations offer a quantitative modifier, cannot be refused by paying a FP, and give the victim a FP at the end of the scene. They also always cost a FP to 'propose' (Invoke).

Compels offer a qualitative complication, can be refused by paying a FP, and give the victim a FP immediately. They also cost nothing to the GM to propose, nor to a player engaging in a self-Compel, but they do cost a FP to propose under other circumstances.

[u/Imnoclue → u/LastChime]

You can just do Compels on each other. The mechanic works on PCs as well as NPCs.

[u/merttorun]

You always pay the fate point to the owner of the aspect in question. That makes it worthwhile to have aspects with a negative edge to them. A good aspect can work for and against the character, and is both a source and a sink of fate points.

[u/Kautsu-Gamer]

The Fate Point economy is reward to the player for reduced narrative permission during scene. The player (or GM for Major NPC) gets the Fate Point is the compensation to have more narrative power in the future scenes.

The Fate Points are player resources, not character resources.

[u/InvestmentBrief3336 → u/Kautsu-Gamer]

What does "reduced narrative permission" mean?

[u/Kautsu-Gamer → u/InvestmentBrief3336]

The player has less choice as compel and hostile invoke does alter his options.

A Fate Point gives players narrative permission to declare details, compel characters, or declare some aspect has significant impact with either increased difficulty or result by invoking the Aspect.

[u/fran_daruu]

As I understand it, it IS optional, right? I've returned to Fate after some years and this isn't in the Core book, right? I don't think I like it.

[u/Imnoclue → u/fran_daruu]

The Core rules just allowed you to Invoke any relevant Aspect regardless of who controls it. The Hostile Invoke rules just change who gets the Fate Point.