A House Rule For Social Combat

[Sanctaphrax]

Nobody seemed to be talking about the topic I started this thread to discuss, so I decided not to fight the derails.

Feel free to try and re-rail, especially if you have a good way to avoid one of the two big problems that came up in discussion.

(Which are the narrative mechanics that have leaked in here and the possible difficulty of determining weapon ratings on the fly.)

[sinker]

I still think it's worth noting that the game designers felt that "Social Attacks" are enough of a restriction to double the power of social stunts, especially since it bypasses your zero-sum attack problem.

[Mr. Death]

You must really hate casters, then, who can relatively easily give themselves 'permanent' bonuses to accuracy and damage in excess of +5 each.

Not really. A caster needs at least 2 or 3 refresh spent already before they can get to that point, and pay the price in stress whether their attack hits the mark or not. Plus, as I've said before, I'm of the opinion that casters are supposed to be able to do more damage than a vanilla mortal.

I'm not trying to set up a false dilemma. I just want to know what the heck Mr. Death is trying to say.

He seems to regard Weapon Specialization as more problematic than Weapon Focus or Weapon Mastery. I'm trying to work out why.

Ah, I see now. It's not that I think one is more problematic than the others so much as I simply wasn't thinking of the others. Just because I'm focusing on one doesn't mean I approve of the others--it just means I'm only talking about the one.
 
For the record, though, I see the same problems with those as I see with a flat bonus to stress: Too strong of a benefit with the given conditions. If the conditions are "when the PC is wielding the weapon he's built around," that means the stunt is going to come into play the vast majority of rolls, so it should have a weaker effect. Hell, the only direct-defense boosting stunt I can think of offhand is Duelist, which is only a +1 to Weapons defenses, and it still has more of a condition than wielding a given weapon.

[Sanctaphrax]

I still think it's worth noting that the game designers felt that "Social Attacks" are enough of a restriction to double the power of social stunts, especially since it bypasses your zero-sum attack problem.

I don't think they did.

I think they just screwed up. There's nothing in the actual rules that suggests social stunts are doubly powerful. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to extrapolate from the examples given.

If they wanted to make social stunts an exception from the normal stunt rules, don't you think they'd say so?

Ah, I see now. It's not that I think one is more problematic than the others so much as I simply wasn't thinking of the others. Just because I'm focusing on one doesn't mean I approve of the others--it just means I'm only talking about the one.
 
For the record, though, I see the same problems with those as I see with a flat bonus to stress: Too strong of a benefit with the given conditions. If the conditions are "when the PC is wielding the weapon he's built around," that means the stunt is going to come into play the vast majority of rolls, so it should have a weaker effect. Hell, the only direct-defense boosting stunt I can think of offhand is Duelist, which is only a +1 to Weapons defenses, and it still has more of a condition than wielding a given weapon.

So your problem actually has nothing to do with +2 stress stunts and everything to do with stunts that reward specializing in a specific weapon?

PS: Duelist doesn't actually boost defences. It boosts blocks. It's also fairly worthless, though it has a niche application in when you and your buddies are ganging up on a dude. Which is not what you'd expect from a stunt called Duelist.
PPS: There's a fairly silly stunt in OW called Way Of The AK that gives +1 to accuracy with every gun of Russian manufacture. I'd hate to use it as precedent, though, since like much of OW it's clearly not very well-balanced.

[sinker]

I don't think they did.

I think they just screwed up. There's nothing in the actual rules that suggests social stunts are doubly powerful. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to extrapolate from the examples given.

If they wanted to make social stunts an exception from the normal stunt rules, don't you think they'd say so?

A lot of what we've heard from Fred in the way of rules explanation is that they expected us to extrapolate from the examples given. If every social attack stunt in the book has twice the power, is it not reasonable to assume that social attacks are in and of themselves narrow enough restrictions to justify it?

[wyvern]

So your problem actually has nothing to do with +2 stress stunts and everything to do with stunts that reward specializing in a specific weapon?

That's not how I'd read that - I don't think he dislikes the notion of rewarding specialization, just that he thinks it's not on its own enough justification for a maximum-normal-power stunt.  So, for example, I think he'd probably be ok with a stunt like:

Hammer Blows: deal an extra +2 stress on a hit, when wielding a two-handed war hammer, in a situation where you have plenty of room to swing your weapon unimpeded - this last condition may require (or be countered by) appropriate declarations or maneuvers, such as "paper walls" (to get room to swing in the otherwise tight corridors of a japanese style palace), or "knife-fighting range" (as an example of a maneuver someone else could try to use to counteract this stunt.)

[Mr. Death]

So your problem actually has nothing to do with +2 stress stunts and everything to do with stunts that reward specializing in a specific weapon?

No, that's not at all what I was saying.

Too strong of a benefit with the given conditions. If the conditions are "when the PC is wielding the weapon he's built around," that means the stunt is going to come into play the vast majority of rolls, so it should have a weaker effect.

Wyvern is right--I thought I made it clear my issue was with the strength of the effect for the lack of substantial restriction, not just that I didn't think that particular condition should have any stunts. I didn't say specializing in a weapon shouldn't be the basis for any stunts.

PS: Duelist doesn't actually boost defences. It boosts blocks. It's also fairly worthless, though it has a niche application in when you and your buddies are ganging up on a dude. Which is not what you'd expect from a stunt called Duelist.

I'll have to check, but I seem to remember the Notes section on Shiro's write-up including it when talking about his defenses. And even if it doesn't, honestly, I think your interpretation is the result of being far too literal. When in doubt, go with the option that makes sense.

[Sanctaphrax]

@sinker: When the rules don't apply, you extrapolate from the examples. When the rules are directly contradicted by the examples, you've got a Problem.

It seems totally improbable to me that anyone would intentionally write an exception into the rules without telling anyone. Rulebooks are not supposed to test their readers; being easy to understand is a good thing.

@wyvern: Yeah, that's what I meant.

[Sanctaphrax]

Shiro's writeup does not tell you what his defences are like.

And a stunt that gives +1 to blocks against a single foe makes plenty of sense. It just sucks. But it doesn't suck more than, say, Killer Blow.

[Mr. Death]

But a +1 to defense against a single opponent makes more sense.

And what exactly is your problem with Killer Blow? +3 stacked on top of whatever other damage bonuses you have (like Lethal Weapon or a Strength power) seems like a pretty alright deal to me.

More on topic, I think part of the reason social stunts might be higher power is because they expected physical conflict to be much more prominent, and therefore those skills would end up on the top of the heap, while social skills would be lower on the totem pole.

[wyvern]

And what exactly is your problem with Killer Blow? +3 stacked on top of whatever other damage bonuses you have (like Lethal Weapon or a Strength power) seems like a pretty alright deal to me.

The problem with Killer Blow is that, in most circumstances, you're better off not taking the stunt.  With the stunt, you can spend a fate point for +3 shifts on a hit.  Without the stunt, you can spend a fate point for +2 accuracy - and then, because you have one fewer stunts, spend another fate point for another +2 accuracy, for a total of +4 accuracy instead of +3 weapon rating.  (Now, you can contrive circumstances where it's better to have it than not, generally involving large piles of fate points and limited available aspects to tag.  But it's usually a bad choice.)

[Tedronai]

Killer Blow is a +1 to stress inflicted by an already successful Fists attack, once per scene, when you're already spending a FP.  At most.  Sometimes, spending the FP on Killer Blow will actually be WORSE than just spending a FP normally on an existing aspect to gain a reroll (which can, theoretically, produce as much as a +8 accuracy bonus relative to the original roll).

[Sanctaphrax]

But a +1 to defense against a single opponent makes more sense.

I actually agree. But the rules are written clearly, and they work. Assuming they mean something other than what they say would be pretty weird.

More on topic, I think part of the reason social stunts might be higher power is because they expected physical conflict to be much more prominent, and therefore those skills would end up on the top of the heap, while social skills would be lower on the totem pole.

I doubt this very much.

First, because writing a deliberately-unbalanced skill system and then patching it with stunts is just silly. Why not write a balanced system? It's not as if they're incapable; in fact, I think they did it.

Second, because nobody sane puts secret rules into an RPG and then doesn't tell the players about them. That's just nuts.

What we're looking at here is obviously an error of some kind. If I had to guess what kind, I'd say that the stunts and the stunt rules were written by different people and changed during the writing process, with imperfect communication.

PS: The problems with Killer Blow have pretty much been covered.
PPS: If your objection is to weapon specialization stunts, then your argument is actually sane.

[Mr. Death]

PPS: If your objection is to weapon specialization stunts, then your argument is actually sane.

Are you saying that my arguments up to now have been insane? I don't really see how.

[UmbraLux]

First, because writing a deliberately-unbalanced skill system and then patching it with stunts is just silly. Why not write a balanced system? It's not as if they're incapable; in fact, I think they did it.

Have to disagree with this.  I don't think balance was a primary goal.  A secondary goal perhaps, but very much secondary to maintaining Dresden flavor.

I think they did a good job.  It kept most of the Dresdenverse flavor and set spellcasting up as the preeminent power.  Pretty much as shown in the books.

Second, because nobody sane puts secret rules into an RPG and then doesn't tell the players about them. That's just nuts.

Hehe, you do realize one of the D&D 3.x designers stated this as a goal, right?  He stated it after the fact, so it may have been more justification than goal, but it was a "feature".

That said, I agree with Sanctaphrax & Tedronai on the relative value of some of the stunts.