That One Guy - Heckler At The Training Dojo

[JoshTheValiant]

See, I see things like being Depressed as mental consequences more than social. Social seems, from the RAW, to be things about your image to others--it mentions that "healing" them tends to be by doing things like community service, changing the perception that others have of you, rather than internal.

Aha, there's the disconnect.  My interpretation has always been more along the lines of Social Consequences being your ability to keep it together in front of others.  Subtle difference, but that means that in my game, Social Consequences aren't reputation-based, but composure-based.  "Laughingstock" isn't about everybody laughing about you, it's about your reaction to being laughed at.  "Faux Pax" isn't about the high life sneering down their nose at you, it's about your internal tension for having done something so stupid.  They're all distractions, and in some cases MAJOR ones.

It does blur the line a bit between Social and Mental, but I think there's enough delineation there between identity/motivation (mental) and confidence/comfort (social).  In fact, that's a reason why I think Rapport and Deceit are more likely to be Mental Attacks than Social ones.  Its harder to carry forth on your heroic mission if someone suddenly makes compelling arguments about the identity of your employer or informant or the results of your actions thus far.  But that's another discussion.

Re: The time difference between a Social and Physical conflict, that's the reason I mentioned running two combats at once.  The thought of running a single exchange for every round of physical conflict makes some intellectual sense to me, and may not be so difficult to actually game out.  Then again, the idea of a diplomat literally talking down a beastie is just pretty legit.  Hm.

[sinker]

See, I see things like being Depressed as mental consequences more than social. Social seems, from the RAW, to be things about your image to others--it mentions that "healing" them tends to be by doing things like community service, changing the perception that others have of you, rather than internal.

You don't think that other's perception of you has any impact on you personally? The two consequences I mentioned are totally external social consequences, but I can hardly believe that you would feel nothing in response to them.

[Mr. Death]

You don't think that other's perception of you has any impact on you personally? The two consequences I mentioned are totally external social consequences, but I can hardly believe that you would feel nothing in response to them.

Yes, they'd affect you. But as much as, say, having a broken leg, or a gunshot wound, their physical Severe equivalents?

Put it this way, if Spider-Man ran on this set of consequences, he'd lose or have to concede nearly every fight he's in because his social consequences are always filled up with things like, THE WHOLE CITY HATES ME, THE COPS THINK I'M A CRIMINAL, and JJJ IS GIVING ME BAD PRESS AGAIN.

[JoshTheValiant]

Yes, they'd affect you. But as much as, say, having a broken leg, or a gunshot wound, their physical Severe equivalents?

Put it this way, if Spider-Man ran on this set of consequences, he'd lose or have to concede nearly every fight he's in because his social consequences are always filled up with things like, THE WHOLE CITY HATES ME, THE COPS THINK I'M A CRIMINAL, and JJJ IS GIVING ME BAD PRESS AGAIN.

Spidey has taken so many Extreme Consequences, it's not even funny.  You really think those aren't among his main Aspects?  Heck, you could argue that "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" hasn't actually been his Trouble for forty years.

[sinker]

Yes, they'd affect you. But as much as, say, having a broken leg, or a gunshot wound, their physical Severe equivalents?

Totally. Consider that each fills your consequence slot. Makes you more likely to give up or less able to soldier on in any situation. A physical consequence will be compelled in physical conflict to further hamper you. A social consequence will be compelled in social conflict to further hamper you. Both will be compelled at various other times. See they are perfectly equal.

Put it this way, if Spider-Man ran on this set of consequences, he'd lose or have to concede nearly every fight he's in because his social consequences are always filled up with things like, THE WHOLE CITY HATES ME, THE COPS THINK I'M A CRIMINAL, and JJJ IS GIVING ME BAD PRESS AGAIN.

Unless those things aren't the result of a conflict, and are actually part of the character (which they are).

[devonapple]

I see the discussion leaping between two neighboring but separate facets of Consequences. Someone makes a good point about one facet, then someone brings up the other facet as counterargument, and they aren't really the same.

Consequences serve two distinct purposes:

1) Fate Point Generator: this is *good* - it can sting taking that first free tag on a Broken Leg, or Town Pariah, or Crippling Self-Doubt, but after that, the GM has plot hooks, and the player gets Fate Points. All those complications from having a Consequence which lasts for awhile ultimately contribute to drama, narrative, etc. And if the player can throw a few Fate Points at one of his own Consequences? Brilliant! Strength through adversity. Some people planning to Concede a conflict may even opt to take a few Consequences just to build up some Fate Points (you get one for every Consequence you take in a conflict for which you Conceded).

2) Ablative Narrative Armor: this is the part that really chafes - the fact that a Consequence taking up a slot in your Consequence track may mean your character will be more liable to fail in a later conflict, one which may be unlike or even completely unrelated to the precipitating conflict. But that is what Stress in DFRPG ultimately measures: a character's narrative agency. It might seem like armor and hit points, but it isn't. It is your treasury of plot impact, and it can be squandered or gambled just like any resource, and yes, it may sting later. But there is a mechanism to mitigate that sting: Concession.

[JoshTheValiant]

I see the discussion leaping between two neighboring but separate facets of Consequences. Someone makes a good point about one facet, then someone brings up the other facet as counterargument, and they aren't really the same.

Consequences serve two distinct purposes:

They also serve a third, which is primarily what I (and I believe Mr. Death, though I can't speak for him with assurance) have been talking about:  An abstract representation of the character's overall well-being and resistance to succumbing in the face of hardship.  The issue here is the representation breaking suspension of disbelief, which is a huge factor to a role playing game, and very much worth discussing.

[devonapple]

They also serve a third, which is primarily what I (and I believe Mr. Death, though I can't speak for him with assurance) have been talking about:  An abstract representation of the character's overall well-being and resistance to succumbing in the face of hardship.  The issue here is the representation breaking suspension of disbelief, which is a huge factor to a role playing game, and very much worth discussing.

I get that, but I feel that is, at core, romanticizing (not inappropriately so, mind you) facet 2.

[sinker]

I think the argument that I see is that others believe that physical health is separate from mental and social health, and that they have lesser impact on other facets.

I would disagree. As I mentioned before Doctors these days are acknowledging that things like social health and even financial health can have a great deal of impact on one's physical wellbeing.

[JoshTheValiant]

I think the argument that I see is that others believe that physical health is separate from mental and social health, and that they have lesser impact on other facets.

I would disagree. As I mentioned before Doctors these days are acknowledging that things like social health and even financial health can have a great deal of impact on one's physical wellbeing.

In the long term, I agree, but I agree with Mr. Death on the point of an immediate fight being less likely to be decided by a lack of motivation or a bruised ego.  I can easily imagine the fight going BADLY because of those factors, but the effects of depression on your cardiac fitness are rather outside the scope of the game's conflict/Consequence rules.

To put it in the reverse, I'm not sure I buy that your broken arm is likely to convince you that your quest isn't ordained by God or give in to the scorn of the social elite.  It might be used against you, but it will not DIRECTLY contribute to your defeat in either arena.

Again, imo.

[devonapple]

In the long term, I agree, but I agree with Mr. Death on the point of an immediate fight being less likely to be decided by a lack of motivation or a bruised ego.  I can easily imagine the fight going BADLY because of those factors, but the effects of depression on your cardiac fitness are rather outside the scope of the game's conflict/Consequence rules.

To put it in the reverse, I'm not sure I buy that your broken arm is likely to convince you that your quest isn't ordained by God or give in to the scorn of the social elite.  It might be used against you, but it will not DIRECTLY contribute to your defeat in either arena.

Characters are rarely *forced* to take a Consequence. Some challenges/conflicts are "for consequence," if the GM sets it up that way. But those are rare, and usually for a particular narrative purpose. Consequences don't even *have* to directly reflect their source, like bullet wounds in a gunfight (though you still have to make some plausible sense). Maybe your gunfight ends with you Conceding after taking the Consequence "That Lady Took A Bullet Meant For Me." Your PC didn't get wounded, but he's going to be messed up from the experience, and may probably get Compels from police, the person's family, or just from the bad guy poking him about what happened.

But at the end of the day, a player took the Consequence "Lack of Motivation" or "Bruised Ego" or "That Lady Took A Bullet Meant For Me" for a reason which made sense at the time: to stay in a conflict that they maybe were going to lose otherwise.

And at the end of a fine dinner, with rounds of cocktails, appetizers, an entree, dessert, etc.? It's hard getting the check then, too.

Edit: though, in DFRPG, it's more like round after round of knuckle sandwich followed by a crow aperitif.

[JoshTheValiant]

Fair enough.  I digress on the level of narrative abstractness I'm willing to accept and encourage in my games compared to you, so I'll bow out here and agree to disagree.

Maybe your gunfight ends with you Conceding after taking the Consequence "That Lady Took A Bullet Meant For Me." Your PC didn't get wounded, but he's going to be messed up from the experience, and may probably get Compels from police, the person's family, or just from the bad guy poking him about what happened.

Except for this.  This is pretty rad, conceptually, but I think it's defying the game's own stated rules on what a Physical Consequence is.  If the attacker made a physical attack intended to cause physical harm in a physical conflict, it seems out of scope for a player to then turn around and take a mental (or would this be social?  Up for debate, if you're using the resolve/composure paradigm I alluded to earlier) consequence.  With the number of ways there are to gain consequence slots in this game, I don't think this is a matter of opinion, but a matter of the rules of the game.

If you like tweaking the rules for the dramas, more power to you, but it's not supported by the RAW.

[Silverblaze]

I figured this thread wouldn't devolve into this.  I really wanted to avoid this conversation, but I guess since it already happened I'll weigh in.

I agree with all of Mr. Death's points.

I know the game is not D20 system nor White Wolf etc.  It is a narrative game, I don't like narratives where I always get stomped or have to flee social encounters or simply ignore them and not "roleplay" as the system suggests.

Despite all medical knowledge/opinion of mental/physical/social health - despite the system (or narrative) allow me to put forth my reasoning.

Combat is too easy. If social characters can socially wreck someone before every fight (or hav ethe thumper the crew is about to fight, run away crying etc from having his stresses taken up and refusing to take a social consequence).  The PC's then wreck the NPC thumper since he has very few consequences less to take.  Either that or the NPC looks like a wuss for fleeing due to his 2-4 stress boxes being filled/overfilled. 

As a PC/player I would have no fun - I mean ZERO if I had to run away embarassed or crying or what have you instead of being able to punch that socialite in the face.  (or I do punch him in the face and his bodyguards , vastly less powerful than I, kick my ass since I have social consequences.  No fun.  Rather roleplay than let my stresses handle that.

So now either all characters (PC/NPC both) need to be very, very well rounded or just be good at everything.

I can tell you from examples in real life. Crazy people (mental consequences) who are socially ostracized (social consequences) can still fight just as hard or harder and longer than many people (physical consequences). 

I will cede the point that that is indeed intended by the system. I will cede that many people don't have an issue with it.  I have a HUGE issue with it and in the game I currently play in we simply ignore social combat 100% 

I would deal with the rules as cannon in another game I played, just not sure how much I would enjoy it.

Remember players, you can downright break the combat system by initiating social combat prior to every fight. Then drop an attack using emotional vampire or incite emotion.  Then let the fighters cream every foe.

[devonapple]

YS 203-204 (emphasis mine):
"Any time a character takes stress, he may opt to take a consequence to reduce the amount of stress received from the attack. The exact nature of the consequence depends upon the conflict—an injury might be appropriate for a physical struggle, but an emotional state might be apt for a social one. Whatever the consequence, it is written down under the stress track.

Normally, the player taking the consequence gets to describe what it is, so long as it’s compatible with the nature of the attack that inflicted the harm. The GM arbitrates the appropriateness of a consequence and there may be some back and forth conversation before settling on one. The GM is the final authority on whether a player’s suggested consequence is reasonable for the circumstances and severity."

My example is not particularly a violation of RAW: it just may not work for every GM or group. Certainly it is more appropriate a result of a gunfight than, say. "Grandmother Wrote Me Out Of The Will" or "Smelly Feet."

The GM is, of course, the final arbiter on whether or not to add two new Consequence Tracks to the players

[devonapple]

I get all of your points, and if your table opts to drop Social Conflict, great. I have sort of dropped it for the sake of my players, too, none of whom built characters for it.

Remember players, you can downright break the combat system by initiating social combat prior to every fight. Then drop an attack using emotional vampire or incite emotion.  Then let the fighters cream every foe.

But this sounds like a breakdown of some sort. Like the narrative equivalent of promising "I won't kill you - just lay down and stop resisting" and then killing the person while they are prone. Because there are unspoken stakes in the conflict, it's not really a genuine conflict. A conflict resolution is supposed to be the end of that conflict. Psyching someone out or talking them down from a conflict *should* be an effective way of avoiding a physical conflict. But if you take someone out socially - get them to acquiesce - only to launch an easily-won physical confrontation, I think that's a major disruption in the way the game is supposed to be played. Am I missing something?

Edit: also, look at Robespierre. Finest orator of the French Revolution. Denounced enemies of the People, and his own, sending them all to La Guillotine. Master of the Social Conflict. And when it came time for him to go, the first thing his opponents did was shoot him right in the mouth so he couldn't talk anymore. No more Social Conflicts for Robespierre. Edit 2: okay, there is some uncertainty about whether he shot his jaw off in a failed suicide attempt, or if someone else shot him.