Social Conflicts Like Pulling Teeth

[TheMouse]

I see two problems with the situation where you're using social conflict to get the clue from the worried mom type.

1. I don't think it necessarily needs a full scale social conflict. You wouldn't need to run her out of Composure and drill through Consequences. Assuming the PCs were at all sympathetic, she's probably Concede pretty quickly. Most likely after taking a single Consequence. There's no need to draw it out more than that.

2. You're making a mistake that I find a lot of people new to investigation style games make: You've bottlenecked the information at one point, and the PCs need to do this one thing in order for the game to move forward. Failure shouldn't mean that everything stops; it can easily mean that they get the information they need, but that something goes wrong in the process.

There are a couple of ways to make social conflicts more effective.

The simplest is to build a sort of support structure. One PC acts as the voice, while the other PCs Meneuver to create temporary Aspects and pass off the free invocation to the voice. This boosts the effective Skill level of the acting PC and involves the rest of the group as well.

Example Maneuvers:

* Making tea for everyone, putting the mother at her ease. Example Aspect, "Camomile puts me at my ease."
* Saying comforting things that support the points of the acting character. Example Aspect, "We really just want to help."

With two characters supporting the speaking character, even with a 50/50 chance of each Maneuver working, the acting character gets an average bonus of +2. If you can manage Maneuvers that wouldn't logically be resisted by the NPC, that jumps to an average of +4, which is huge.


The group social conflict thing can be sticky. I'd judge how things should work on a case by case basis.

If there's one strong leader and the rest are mooks, the leader's Concession should be enough to end the conflict. That one leader is the driving force behind that side's conflict.

If it's a group of equals, you might have to push through several people. Much of the time, once a fair portion of the team has fallen, those remaining will likely want to Concede in a way that lets them leave, perhaps with those taken out. Sometimes you'll have to drill through everyone, though.

A very rough guideline might be something like this: If at least half the people who matter are taken out, the rest of the group will try to jump ship unless the other team is at least as bad.

[devonapple]

I see two problems with the situation where you're using social conflict to get the clue from the worried mom type.
1. I don't think it necessarily needs a full scale social conflict. You wouldn't need to run her out of Composure and drill through Consequences. Assuming the PCs were at all sympathetic, she's probably Concede pretty quickly. Most likely after taking a single Consequence. There's no need to draw it out more than that.

Yes, in retrospect, this scene probably didn't warrant the full conflict, though I maintain that she was intentionally going to be something of a hard case just by her nature.

2. You're making a mistake that I find a lot of people new to investigation style games make: You've bottlenecked the information at one point

I can see how it might seem that way in this limited post, but this was information that they could have found in a number of other ways, though the mother was the primary lead. I've read the Three Clue Rule and have run a few games of Trail of Cthulhu, so I'm wary about plot bottlenecks. It would admittedly have been quicker if they got the information from her, but there were more challenging options which nevertheless played to their skills, but might have taken more time and exposed them to danger.

Besides, there are plenty of examples in investigative fiction when a stubborn early lead "comes around" later in the story with some information they were holding back. Even if they had completely flubbed their initial Social Conflict, and had to concede out of it, she would probably have looked them up later as things escalated with her son.

[Drashna]

The last bit sounds very reasonable. Namely, the section on "running the game", suggesting that even botched conflicts progressing the story, just maybe in a different way. Or a less savory way. (aka, still get the info, but maybe it's misleading, or outright wrong)

[noclue]

For example, a group of players against one NPC, or a single player against a group of NPCs.

• Would one member of the group (presumably the most socially apt) serve as the voice, making all of the rolls to deal Social Stress, executing Social maneuvers, etc., with other group members restricting their participation to making rolls to assist the voice?
• Or is it a free-for-all, with the lone participant having to divide energy between all of the members of the opposing group?

It would make sense that ganging up on someone would have benefits to browbeating them, but I don't want to oversimplify the Conflict.

This really needs fictional context. If you assume they're characters in a story, rather than just PCs with stats, then having them all stand around browbeating some woman into trusting them might not make any sense (even if the mechanics look better). I probably wouldn't set up a conflict like that in the first place. It's hard to make it interesting when a group gangs up on someone. If I saw it coming, I'd look for compels to drive wedges between the PCs and get the PCs involved in other things. I'd figure out if there's one PC who would be the likely person to be talking. For instance, if one of the characters was known to the mother, or had some recognizable connection to her son, everyone else would naturally be viewed as an extension of that PC. So, let everyone else help but make that conflict with that PC.

In a pinch, remember that words can hit everyone at the same time. So, you should be able to make social attacks/blocks/maneuvers that target everyone in the group.

[devonapple]

In a pinch, remember that words can hit everyone at the same time. So, you should be able to make social attacks/blocks/maneuvers that target everyone in the group.

I'd like to, but it seems potentially unbalancing. Maybe a Spray attack? ::shrugs::

[bibliophile20]

I'd like to, but it seems potentially unbalancing. Maybe a Spray attack? ::shrugs::

Sounds legit, or make a stunt to that effect, along the line of public speaking, that more people feel that you are addressing them particularly. 

[devonapple]

The last bit sounds very reasonable. Namely, the section on "running the game", suggesting that even botched conflicts progressing the story, just maybe in a different way. Or a less savory way. (aka, still get the info, but maybe it's misleading, or outright wrong)

I'm trying very conscientiously to use the "yes, but..." style of GMing rather than the ::roll roll roll:: "no" style. But sometimes the GM's job *is* to say "no."

[TheMouse]

But sometimes the GM's job *is* to say "no."

There's some excellent advice on this topic in Nobilis 2nd ed. What it boils down to is that most of the time you should be saying, "Yes," "Yes, but," or, "Yes, and." Those times you feel inclined to say, "No," try instead to ask, "How?" Repeat as necessary until you either feel that the action can happen, or until the person realizes that they're asking for something unreasonable.

Reserve, "No," for the rarest of occasions.

[noclue]

I'd like to, but it seems potentially unbalancing.

Really? To me it just makes sense and provides less incentive for your players to try to swarm NPCs in social conflicts. So, it's not only logical, but it improves the fiction at the same time.

[devonapple]

Really? To me it just makes sense and provides less incentive for your players to try to swarm NPCs in social conflicts. So, it's not only logical, but it improves the fiction at the same time.

To their credit, that wasn't their intention. We just aren't splitting up the party very often, so it's usually all three of the characters at a time.

I think I may be leaning towards forcing a parity on both sides:

Two groups with multiple characters: free-for-all. Taking out the de facto leader of one group takes out the whole group. Otherwise, go with whatever makes the most sense.
Question: if the leader of a group concedes, would all the participants on his side get a Fate Point?

One group versus one character: there look to be two options:

a) the group gets a de factor leader, the rest of the group can assist with Aspects, but only one person on each side is making Social Stress attacks. Even other players with Intimidation are just using that skill to perform Maneuvers. Whichever opponent takes out or forces a Concession from the other side wins.

b) the solitary character deals Social Stress and lays Maneuvers unilaterally among all members of the opposing group. The opposing group can all Maneuver and deal Social Stress to the solitary opponent. When one group member is taken out or Concedes, the rest of the group follows suit unless it makes no sense (but if the group was that divided, perhaps it should have been split to begin with, making effectively three sides to the conflict?).

[newtinmpls]

This just delighted me:

"There are a couple of ways to make social conflicts more effective.
The simplest is to build a sort of support structure. One PC acts as the voice, while the other PCs Meneuver to create temporary Aspects and pass off the free invocation to the voice. This boosts the effective Skill level of the acting PC and involves the rest of the group as well.

Example Maneuvers:
* Making tea for everyone, putting the mother at her ease. Example Aspect, "Camomile puts me at my ease."
* Saying comforting things that support the points of the acting character. Example Aspect, "We really just want to help." "

Getting my mind wrapped around maneuvers was the key to making the magic system workable in this game system; otherwise it's too much cost for overall, too little effort that doesn't last long enough (I prefer as a player to use systems that favor item creation sorts of stuff, or long term effects) the idea that the whole party can effectively contribute to the success of the "point character" no matter if it's  magic, social stuff or whatever just by itself contributs to teamwork and creativity and makes for a better game.

that being said, I do tend to role play social stuff more than make it conflict, but this is giving me ideas. Thanks!

[TheMouse]

Getting my mind wrapped around maneuvers was the key to making the magic system workable in this game system; otherwise it's too much cost for overall, too little effort that doesn't last long enough (I prefer as a player to use systems that favor item creation sorts of stuff, or long term effects) the idea that the whole party can effectively contribute to the success of the "point character" no matter if it's  magic, social stuff or whatever just by itself contributs to teamwork and creativity and makes for a better game.

that being said, I do tend to role play social stuff more than make it conflict, but this is giving me ideas. Thanks!

You're welcome.

Fate games tend to very strongly reward groups working together by means of Maneuvers and such. Not only does it tend to create a more orderly play experience, but it makes it so that you can accomplish things together that none of the characters could do on their own.

[Wordmaker]

I definitely think full Social Conflict should be reserved for really meaty encounters with important NPCs at critical points. If the mother is there primarily for clues and information, make it a skill test rather than a full conflict.

Now, if the opponent in the Social Conflict is a member of a cult the group is trying to turn to their side and convince to betray his masters, that's worthy of a conflict.

[JesterOC]

I definitely think full Social Conflict should be reserved for really meaty encounters with important NPCs at critical points. If the mother is there primarily for clues and information, make it a skill test rather than a full conflict.

Agreed.

However if you want to make this challenging for the PCs just make a challenge with consequences. Win or Loose give them the info, but on a failure have the mom upset at them for prying into her life, or perhaps the PC's take a consequence of "upset with Mom".

[Fedifensor]

My group has had a lot of trouble with Social conflicts, so I'm trying to make a quick reference sheet for them.  Here's what I have so far...any feedback is appreciated.

----------
Social Combat Quick Reference Sheet

Initiative:  Empathy

Attack/Defense:
Deceit (cannot use for both attack and defense in the same round)
   versus Alertness, Empathy, Investigation, or Rapport (depending on the type of deceit)
Empathy (assessments only)
   versus Deceit or Rapport
Intimidation
   versus Discipline, Presence, or Rapport
Presence (only versus large groups)
   versus Empathy or Rapport
Rapport (primarily for maneuvers)
   versus Deceit or Rapport

Other possible social skills:
Conviction - sometimes used as a social defense
Contacts - sometimes used as a social attack against reputation
Lore - used versus Lore-based Deceit ("He's not really a wizard...")
Performance - sometimes used for declarations, such as music to soothe the savage beast
Scholarship - used versus Scholarship-based Deceit ("Cars don't explode like that!")
Resources - modifies bribery attempts