A House Rule For Social Combat

[Sanctaphrax]

About a month ago, I was working on some social attack stunts when I realized that, thanks to the general lack of weapon ratings on social attacks, +1 accuracy is not significantly better than +1 stress.

This bugged me somewhat, but I wasn't sure what to do about it.

More recently, I was working on a Telepathy power that would allow its user to give mental commands. When I was trying to work out the limits of that effect, I realized that social attacks had no clearly-defined limit to what they could make people do. Convincing someone to lend you $500 and convincing someone to give you their house are pretty much the same so far as the system is concerned.

This also bugged me somewhat.

Then I realized that these problems could solve one another. So here's the rule:

Social attacks have weapon ratings. The weapon rating of a social attack is determined by the reasonableness of the attack and by how well that attack fits its target's character.

Personally, I'm inclined to make the weapon rating of the average attack positive. Social conflicts can get a bit slow. But right now I'm more interested in discussing the rule in general than in discussing the appropriate weapon rating for an attempt to bribe a cop.

The basic idea here is that an attempt at bribery should be easier if the target is corrupt and harder if the target is likely to get caught taking the bribe.

So, forum. Do you think that this is a good idea?

[ways and means]

The reason there are few social stunts with added weapon ratings is that most of the RAW stunts to aid social characters where +2 and accuracy is always better than weapons rating.

[Sanctaphrax]

Well, yeah.

But what does that have to do with anything?

[crusher_bob]

Hmm, seem to be several issues here:

1
How exactly do consequences and taking out happen in social conflict?
For example, we are having an argument about where to go and get lunch.  I'd assume me getting taken out indicates that I either agree with your argument about where to get lunch, or just decide not to argue about it anymore.  And what if I care enough about where we are having lunch to take consequences in the argument? What would that look like?

But what about more nebulous things like, "I'm trying to destroy your reputation with the White Council."?  In this example, consequences make more sense, in that they can represent how 'damaged' my reputation gets, or maybe favors I have to call in, or something like that.  And my reputation with one of the great powers of the world is probably something important enough to take consequences over, so things line up there just fine.

2
how to establish 'stakes' of a social conflict?
Obviously, we want more extreme stakes to be harder to accomplish.  So, "mister, can you spare a dollar." is a much easier stake to get than, "give me all your worldly possessions, peon!"

Tying this to aspects seems like a good place to start (sorta stealing from Exalteds 'intimacies", but then, most people really don't have a bunch of aspects related to keeping all their stuff, either.

3
Timescale
What's the time scale of social conflict?  For example, if I somehow get a social skill total of, say, 9 can I shut myself and my victim in a closet for a few minutes while I socially crush them?  Or would it require weeks of brain washing, or what?

---------------

Here's my first brainstorm:

1
Being socially taken out and just 'running out of social stress' are made into explicitly different things.  Being taken out is reserved for stuff like full on brain washing.  Just running out out stress may just mean losing an argument about where to have lunch.

2 Timing/Stakes
It generally takes time to inflict larger social consequences.  So for example, If I want to just give you a mild 'embarrassed' consequence, this might only take a few minutes, but inflicting a severe 'bad reputation' would take considerably longer.

So, just throwing out some numbers:
Running someone out of stress might take 'an instant'
Resolving a conflict with mild stakes might take 'a few minutes' (+4 on the timescale)
a conflict with moderate stakes might take 'a few hours'
severe 'a week'
extreme 'a season'
and full take out/manchurian candidate stuff 'a decade'

Stunts, powers, and good ideas can increase or decrease the timescales needed.

-------------

This also helps differentiate social stunts.  People with + accuracy/power stunts are good at winning arguments.  People with timescale stunts are good at actually changing peoples beliefs.

[devonapple]

This also helps differentiate social stunts.  People with + accuracy/power stunts are good at winning arguments.  People with timescale stunts are good at actually changing peoples beliefs.

So you could have stunt for things like "The Long Con" or "Come to Jesus".

Diaspora (FATE) was touted as having a sophisticated social combat system - I may opt to get it.

[UmbraLux]

Social attacks have weapon ratings. The weapon rating of a social attack is determined by the reasonableness of the attack and by how well that attack fits its target's character.

Have to admit I'm surprised to see this from you - it doesn't seem to mesh with your desire to separate mechanics from narrative.

So, forum. Do you think that this is a good idea?

I don't know that weapons are needed.  I do think setting stakes should be far more explicit.

The difference between a high school debate team's contest and a political debate for the presidential primary isn't in weapons.  It's in the stakes.  The high school debater's stakes are a contest and, maybe, some minor embarrassment.  The primary contest has far more at stake...a presidential run on one side and possibly up to criminal prosecution on the other.

Diaspora (FATE) was touted as having a sophisticated social combat system - I may opt to get it.

Setting the scene (which should imply stakes - still wish they were explicit) is one thing Diaspora does well.  It has you assign "zones" to social combat with zones being areas of thought or agreement.

[Sanctaphrax]

@crusher_bob: Sounds like a decent brainstorm, but I would really rather use the same system for physical and social conflicts. The current system actually works pretty well, I'm not too keen on entirely abandoning it.

@UmbraLux: This is actually in accordance with my desire for narrative-mechanical separation. Way I see it, the difference between making someone do one thing and making them do another is partially mechanical. I'd explain further, but I'd rather not derail the thread.

As I see it, stakes are set with each social attack. You say what you want to accomplish upon take-out with each social attack.

Given that, it seems sensible to modify each attack based on its stakes. Which is what I'm trying to do here.

[UmbraLux]

Given that, it seems sensible to modify each attack based on its stakes. Which is what I'm trying to do here.

I'm not sure that makes sense to me.  You're suggesting a single given attack have different weapon values based on whether it's a high school debate or a presidential primary?  Not sure I'm seeing your intent, can you explain?

[Ophidimancer]

I don't know if you guys have tried this before, but there is a house rule for social combat that I like.  I kind of port something over from Strands of FATE, where Social combat isn't about convincing the target of something, but rather determining their social image.  I make Mental Combat the arena of changing someone's mind and Social Combat the arena of changing someone's reputation.

[Silverblaze]

I have recently had a conversation about social combat.  I think I like the fact that it can solve an arguement.  I also think it is kind of scary.  Dice rolls can completely change the way a character thinks ("Join the Dark Side" "Change your political party or religion" "Broccoli in fact does taste good") and the player has to deal with that.

I feel there are some things you simply can't achieve with a few rolls in social combat regardless of the rapport skill rating.

[Ophidimancer]

I have recently had a conversation about social combat.  I think I like the fact that it can solve an arguement.  I also think it is kind of scary.  Dice rolls can completely change the way a character thinks ("Join the Dark Side" "Change your political party or religion" "Broccoli in fact does taste good") and the player has to deal with that.

I feel there are some things you simply can't achieve with a few rolls in social combat regardless of the rapport skill rating.

I think the FATE system, more than any other, accounts for this in a pretty satisfying fashion in three ways.
1) Consequences give the player the choice to not be Taken Out.
2) Concessions allow a player to resolve a conflict in a manner consistent with their vision for the character.
3) Even if Taken Out unexpectedly, the "reasonableness" rule still says that the result can't be wildly out of character.

[ways and means]

I think the FATE system, more than any other, accounts for this in a pretty satisfying fashion in three ways.
1) Consequences give the player the choice to not be Taken Out.
2) Concessions allow a player to resolve a conflict in a manner consistent with their vision for the character.
3) Even if Taken Out unexpectedly, the "reasonableness" rule still says that the result can't be wildly out of character.

Which is why mental evocation is great, reasonable consequences include thralldome, sorry its a side point but it does illustrate the comparative tameness of social stress. 

[UmbraLux]

I feel there are some things you simply can't achieve with a few rolls in social combat regardless of the rapport skill rating.

Agreed.  This is part of why I like setting the stakes explicitly.  Once they're set, that's all that can occur from the conflict.  Any consequences need to reflect it and so do the scenes (which primarily matters for recovery).

Convincing someone to stop using mental magic sets a life changing goal.  The stakes are similarly life changing - either the mental mage changes and stops using lawbreaking magic or the White Council rep has to kill someone who only meant to help.  Either way, at least one life is changed - probably for years if not permanently.

On the flip side, convincing someone to talk too much and give away information on his work is (usually) less life changing.  (Not talking about any security clearances, just standard social engineering.)  The stakes will vary from minor embarrassment to potential reprimand.  Embarrassment is something you get over quickly while a reprimand might stick around for six months or a year. 

By setting the stakes we've determined what will shape consequences and how long it will take to recover from them.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Silverblaze: Yeah, social take-outs have limits. Unfortunately, those limits are rather vague. This system would allow you to remove those limits if you felt inclined, since you can apply arbitrarily low weapon ratings to social attacks that it makes no sense to have succeed.

@ways and means: Your definition of "great" is very different from mine.

@Ophidimancer: I could see that working, but it would require easier mental attacks. And DFRPG seems to assume that mental stress is something special. Still, making Conviction useful for resisting attempts to convince you has appeal.

@UmbraLux: I thought a bit more about your comment about narrative and realized a significant flaw with my idea. It lets people effectively get social armour by being unreasonable. This is bad, I'll try to think of a way to fix it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

A social attack's weapon rating depends on how reasonable it is for the target to listen to you. If accepting what you have to say costs nothing, then you'll probably get a high weapon rating. If it's expensive to accept what you have to say, then you'll get a low weapon rating.

Let's take as our example a social attack that's designed to make people vote for you as class president might have a high weapon rating, because nobody is emotionally invested in not voting for you and it's easy to convince them.

But if you're trying to convince people to vote for you as PotUS, people will be emotionally invested in refusing you and as such you'll get a crummy weapon rating.

This mechanically represents the way that hardly anyone ever gets argued away from their core convictions.

[Silverblaze]

@Silverblaze: Yeah, social take-outs have limits. Unfortunately, those limits are rather vague. This system would allow you to remove those limits if you felt inclined, since you can apply arbitrarily low weapon ratings to social attacks that it makes no sense to have succeed.

@ways and means: Your definition of "great" is very different from mine.

@Ophidimancer: I could see that working, but it would require easier mental attacks. And DFRPG seems to assume that mental stress is something special. Still, making Conviction useful for resisting attempts to convince you has appeal.

@UmbraLux: I thought a bit more about your comment about narrative and realized a significant flaw with my idea. It lets people effectively get social armour by being unreasonable. This is bad, I'll try to think of a way to fix it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

A social attack's weapon rating depends on how reasonable it is for the target to listen to you. If accepting what you have to say costs nothing, then you'll probably get a high weapon rating. If it's expensive to accept what you have to say, then you'll get a low weapon rating.

Let's take as our example a social attack that's designed to make people vote for you as class president might have a high weapon rating, because nobody is emotionally invested in not voting for you and it's easy to convince them.

But if you're trying to convince people to vote for you as PotUS, people will be emotionally invested in refusing you and as such you'll get a crummy weapon rating.

This mechanically represents the way that hardly anyone ever gets argued away from their core convictions.

Social combat has another huge problem.  If I (the character) don't want to be convinced and I (the character) am unreasonable...I (the character) can just walk away.  I (the character) can plug my ears.  I (the character) can pee on your leg.  I (the character) can up and shoot you in the face.  All of this is a generally good way to end a social combat. 

Being very unreasonable totally ruins social combat.

I really hate social combat. I think it adds more grind/time drain into the game much like physical combat can.  I do see it's uses now though.  So I am becoming more moderate on it.

  I also very much agree with UmbraLux.  Setting the stakes at hand is very important.