How to reach Dresden level health status

[Khalis231]

Uhhh...

This is not correct.

Each stress track /does/ have an exclusive consequence set.

It makes no sense to take "broken ribs" as a consequence to social conflict.

Believe me, this took me a little while to puzzle through, because the book isn't very explicit about it. Each character has only one set of mild, moderate and severe consequences. Each slot can be filled by a physical, mental or social consequence, as determined by whatever's dealing you stress at the time you take the consequence. This doesn't mean that you can take the consequence "broken ribs" in a social conflict, it means that if you take the moderate physical consequence of "broken ribs" in a fight and subsequently enter a social conflict, you can't take a moderate social consequence of "severely flustered" because your moderate consequence is already filled by the physical consequence you took earlier.

"Each character may take one [consequence] of each severity ... once the consequence slot is used, it cannot be used again until the current consequence is removed"

Doesn't say anything about types of consequence or one per stress track, just one consequence at each severity.

Also, if you take a look at the character sheet, you'll notice that it contains only one slot for each level of consequence, and that each is marked as "any" in the P/M/S column. If every character had nine consequences (three per stress track) to start, they would have included space to fill all those consequences. Instead, they have only a few blank lines in case you gain additional mild consequences through stunts or high skills.

This interpretation seems to make the most sense based on the rules, but there's always the possibility I'm dead wrong on this. Can anyone else shed some light on this?

[Khalis231]

That doesn't make any sense to me.  At all.

It's also not how any of the PbP games are played that I am aware of.

I won't be changing my game unless Fred himself says something about this.  It doesn't seem right to me.

If the consequence list is really that short, not only are all characters much less powerful, but it makes the stunts giving an extra consequence FAR more powerful.

Yes, all characters are much less powerful, but I think it does a lot to balance spellcasters with non-spellcasters. I read a lot about the power of evocation on these boards, and this issue might be a major part of why people perceive it as such. Evocation would be absurdly overpowered if a wizard had six consequences base (3 physical, 3 mental) to fill with backlash from supercharged spells.

[BumblingBear]

Hmmmm....

So if this is the case, it seems to me that inhuman recovery should affect mental, social, and physical consequences.

Otherwise, it's fairly expensively priced. No?

[Khalis231]

Hmmmm....

So if this is the case, it seems to me that inhuman recovery should affect mental, social, and physical consequences.

Otherwise, it's fairly expensively priced. No?

I wholeheartedly disagree that recovery is expensively priced as-is. It doesn't affect mental or social consequences, but physical consequences are by far the most common consequence suffered in a combat situation, so recovery fulfills its job of bouncing you back after a fight quite nicely. Also, don't forget the benefits of the Tireless stunt equivalent, plus the ability to clear a mild physical consequence once per scene (which is more valuable than it would be if everyone had nine to start).

Plus, it just plain wouldn't make sense for a creature's fast healing to affect its damaged reputation.

[BumblingBear]

I wholeheartedly disagree that recovery is expensively priced as-is. It doesn't affect mental or social consequences, but physical consequences are by far the most common consequence suffered in a combat situation, so recovery fulfills its job of bouncing you back after a fight quite nicely. Also, don't forget the benefits of the Tireless stunt equivalent, plus the ability to clear a mild physical consequence once per scene (which is more valuable than it would be if everyone had nine to start).

Plus, it just plain wouldn't make sense for a creature's fast healing to affect its damaged reputation.

None of this makes any sense to me.

I see "floored about the past" and "broken ribs" as mutually exclusive, but under the RAW as we are arguing it, they would take up the same slot.

Plus, every game is different.  Some games have more social conflict than others.

I think it is /retarded/ that in a fight with a bad guy, a character could opt to make a really good/bad insult, and fill up a moderate consequence on a bad guy, and that bad guy would not be able to take a moderate physical consequence during the fight anymore.

That is...silly.

[BumblingBear]

I just asked Fred about it.  I will post his response if/when I get it.

No point in arguing for the sake of arguing, right?

[UmbraLux]

I won't be changing my game unless Fred himself says something about this.  It doesn't seem right to me.

It's specified on YS204.  "Each character may take one of each severity...once the consequence slot is used, it cannot be used again until the current consequence is removed."

But, if your current method works for your group, go for it.  Don't fix what's not broken. 

If the consequence list is really that short, not only are all characters much less powerful, but it makes the stunts giving an extra consequence FAR more powerful.

Yep!  I see this as a feature!    SotC was too over the top, DFRPG is just gritty enough.  Though I still need to try out Diaspora one day...

[Mal_Luck]

That doesn't make any sense to me.  At all.

It's also not how any of the PbP games are played that I am aware of.

From my knowledge, all the PbP games play this way. At least all the ones that I have participated in.

[BumblingBear]

My world is crashing in around me!

I don't know what is real anymore!

[Khalis231]

None of this makes any sense to me.

I see "floored about the past" and "broken ribs" as mutually exclusive, but under the RAW as we are arguing it, they would take up the same slot.

Plus, every game is different.  Some games have more social conflict than others.

I think it is /retarded/ that in a fight with a bad guy, a character could opt to make a really good/bad insult, and fill up a moderate consequence on a bad guy, and that bad guy would not be able to take a moderate physical consequence during the fight anymore.

That is...silly.

Hopefully Fred can clarify this for us. I can't believe this hasn't come up before now, to be honest.

With regard to your last point about a character making a really good insult to fill up a bad guy's moderate consequence, I think it would definitely seem unrealistic from a perspective that assumes everyone has three consequences for each stress track, because that seems to imply each set of consequences is a direct measure of a character's fortitude in that department, sort of like stress. I imagine it seems as absurd as somebody making an Intimidate check in D&D to deal hit point damage. However, I think consequences are better conceptualized in a more narrative sense. Sure, that moderate social consequence doesn't actually lessen the amount of physical damage the bad guy can take, but it does throw him off his game and contribute to the next big hit landing harder (having to take a severe physical instead of a moderate).

All that said, however, I would hesitate to allow social stress/consequences to be dealt in the middle of a physical fight. Social combat seems like it's supposed to be a completely different arena from physical combat. Characters could definitely use social skills in the context of a physical fight (insults, threats, distractions etc.), but I would resolve these as maneuvers, rather than straight-up social attacks.

[BumblingBear]

Hopefully Fred can clarify this for us. I can't believe this hasn't come up before now, to be honest.

With regard to your last point about a character making a really good insult to fill up a bad guy's moderate consequence, I think it would definitely seem unrealistic from a perspective that assumes everyone has three consequences for each stress track, because that seems to imply each set of consequences is a direct measure of a character's fortitude in that department, sort of like stress. I imagine it seems as absurd as somebody making an Intimidate check in D&D to deal hit point damage. However, I think consequences are better conceptualized in a more narrative sense. Sure, that moderate social consequence doesn't actually lessen the amount of physical damage the bad guy can take, but it does throw him off his game and contribute to the next big hit landing harder (having to take a severe physical instead of a moderate).

All that said, however, I would hesitate to allow social stress/consequences to be dealt in the middle of a physical fight. Social combat seems like it's supposed to be a completely different arena from physical combat. Characters could definitely use social skills in the context of a physical fight (insults, threats, distractions etc.), but I would resolve these as maneuvers, rather than straight-up social attacks.

I don't see why social attacks could not be performed in combat.

Like... deceit roll against a powerful enemy while taking cover, "You'd better leave fast if you want to live.  I have about 20 people coming on the way right now!"

Definitely seems appropriate to me.

[UmbraLux]

I don't see why social attacks could not be performed in combat.

Like... deceit roll against a powerful enemy while taking cover, "You'd better leave fast if you want to live.  I have about 20 people coming on the way right now!"

Definitely seems appropriate to me.

Social attacks aren't generally appropriate in combat due to time limitations.  To me, you've described a potentially successful social maneuver above - it might create aspects such as Fear of Reinforcements or Must Finish this Now!  Useful and effective...but not going to cause social damage.  Social damage is reputational (Everyone Saw those Pictures!) or personal (Shamed by My Actions, Too Confused to Recognize Truth, or even Deeply Sorry).  Either way, they rely on how others see you or your fear of how others see you.  Rumors and innuendo take time to spread, they don't happen in a few seconds.

Edit:  The closest social medium to combat speed I can think of is Twitter.  And even it will take minutes for people to read, react, and start spreading.

[Khalis231]

I don't see why social attacks could not be performed in combat.

Like... deceit roll against a powerful enemy while taking cover, "You'd better leave fast if you want to live.  I have about 20 people coming on the way right now!"

Definitely seems appropriate to me.

On the contrary, I don't see why social attacks need to be included in physical combat. It seems like an unnecessary complication.

I would treat that Deceit roll as a maneuver to place the aspect "He's Got Backup Coming?!" on the enemy. The aspect could then be tagged or invoked as normal, either for the normal +2 or as a compel to get the enemy to retreat (and getting the enemy to withdraw seems like the objective of such a tactic in the first place). That seems simpler and more elegant than dealing with the social stress track.

The book also seems to imply that social combat is an entirely different beast in a way that mental combat isn't. Social combat has its own method of determining initiative (Empathy, rather than Alertness), and there are no powers that deal social stress in the way that Incite Emotion deals mental stress. It seems like aside from those rare, exclusively mental conflicts that happen every so often, mental attacks/stress are a subset of physical combat, while social combat is a different method of conflict resolution.

Plus, if an enemy could be Taken Out of a physical combat by dealing social stress, you could create a character who wins firefights just by hurling insults, which doesn't seem to make any sense. Working an enemy into a blind, frothing rage is a time-honored way of setting them up for the killing blow, but this can be accomplished by stacking maneuvers with social skills and tagging them all for a physical attack. Dealing social stress just doesn't seem appropriate in a physical combat situation.

Edit: UmbraLux makes good points too. Social combat seems to take place at a different speed than physical combat.

[BumblingBear]

On the contrary, I don't see why social attacks need to be included in physical combat. It seems like an unnecessary complication.

I would treat that Deceit roll as a maneuver to place the aspect "He's Got Backup Coming?!" on the enemy. The aspect could then be tagged or invoked as normal, either for the normal +2 or as a compel to get the enemy to retreat (and getting the enemy to withdraw seems like the objective of such a tactic in the first place). That seems simpler and more elegant than dealing with the social stress track.

The book also seems to imply that social combat is an entirely different beast in a way that mental combat isn't. Social combat has its own method of determining initiative (Empathy, rather than Alertness), and there are no powers that deal social stress in the way that Incite Emotion deals mental stress. It seems like aside from those rare, exclusively mental conflicts that happen every so often, mental attacks/stress are a subset of physical combat, while social combat is a different method of conflict resolution.

Plus, if an enemy could be Taken Out of a physical combat by dealing social stress, you could create a character who wins firefights just by hurling insults, which doesn't seem to make any sense. Working an enemy into a blind, frothing rage is a time-honored way of setting them up for the killing blow, but this can be accomplished by stacking maneuvers with social skills and tagging them all for a physical attack. Dealing social stress just doesn't seem appropriate in a physical combat situation.

Edit: UmbraLux makes good points too. Social combat seems to take place at a different speed than physical combat.

Implications are not RAW.

If characters can take mental stress from something disturbing they see in combat (and they can), then I see no reason why social stress cannot be taken as well.

Additionally, it makes sense to socially take out a character during combat.

Like, oh, "Luke, I am your father!". 

Point for Bumblingbear.

[UmbraLux]

Implications are not RAW.

If you want RAW (though I'm really less than fond of RAW arguments), check out YS315.  "Whenever a PC is attempting an action where time is important, choose a reasonable increment on the ladder as the starting point...  Reasonable is, of course, extremely group dependent.  If your group decides instant social damage is reasonable, go for it.