A House Rule For Social Combat

[Sanctaphrax]

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

No, they were sane. But if your motivations had been different, they'd have been crazy.

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.

But balance costs nothing. It's not like you lose any flavour by having a balanced skill system.

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's not true, assuming you're talking about this. They were aiming at secret interactions and optimization theories that could only be unveiled through system mastery. Secret rules would have been something like

"You know how it says Toughness gives +3 hp? That's a lie. It actually gives +10. If you look at the hp totals of monsters that have Toughness and calculate backwards, it becomes obvious.

If you make Toughness do what Toughness says it does, you're not playing according to the rules as written. Which is fine, you know, but we take no responsibility for the balance of your houserules."

which is obviously nuts.

[Becq]

An aside from the currently dominant derail:

While I'm not going to claim that Killer Blow is a great, or even a good power, I think you're missing an unspoken benefit to the power, in that it allows you to spend a Fate point to boost an attack without invoking an aspect.  For example, if you only had one aspect that could reasonably be invoked for a particular attack, a character without Killer Blow would be limited to spending a single Fate point to invoke the aspect for a +2 to the attack roll.  A character with Killer Blow would be able to spend the same Fate point to invoke the aspect, and if the attack succeeded, could spend a second Fate point to gain +3 stress.

I guess they basically decided that the "virtual aspect" was worth a shift, reducing the effective bonus to +1 stress.  But yes, it's still a very weak stunt.

[wyvern]

While I'm not going to claim that Killer Blow is a great, or even a good power, I think you're missing an unspoken benefit to the power, in that it allows you to spend a Fate point to boost an attack without invoking an aspect.

Nope, didn't miss that.  I just don't buy it as something that's relevant - if you're invested enough in combat ability to spend a refresh on a stunt like Killer Blow, you should have a decent supply of relevant aspects.  Worst case scenario, spend a fate point to declare some environmental advantage and use the free tag off of that; unless you've already burned 3+ fate points on your attack, there should be no problem with that.

[Mr. Death]

I dunno about you, but I like to spread out aspects to be applicable to different things--after all, a character should be about more than just what they do in a fight.

And I do see stunts as being useful to balance out a deficient skill. They're not just for pushing an already high roll up past the cap, but also for helping to make a character good at something when they don't have the available skill points for whatever reason.

[UmbraLux]

But balance costs nothing.

Not true actually.  If a werewolf had the same power as a prepared wizard, it wouldn't be true to the books.  That's only one example of many.

That's not true, assuming you're talking about this. They were aiming at secret interactions and optimization theories that could only be unveiled through system mastery. Secret rules would have been something like

"You know how it says Toughness gives +3 hp? That's a lie. It actually gives +10. If you look at the hp totals of monsters that have Toughness and calculate backwards, it becomes obvious.

I think you're conflating 'secrecy' with 'deception'.  They're not the same thing.

While I'm not going to claim that Killer Blow is a great, or even a good power, I think you're missing an unspoken benefit to the power, in that it allows you to spend a Fate point to boost an attack without invoking an aspect. 

Even if you don't have any relevant aspects on your character sheet, declarations are easy.  In fact, since we're spending a fate point, the declaration wouldn't even need to be rolled for if crafted appropriately.  Besides, all the other possible aspect sources are also in play - opponent, consequences, maneuver, scene, city, etc.

[sinker]

@Sancta: It's not a secret rule or anything. The stunt creation rules clearly state that if the situation is restricted enough, then one may increase the benefit beyond two shifts (or one shift of accuracy). If the rules say that, and then all stunts of a specific type have an increased benefit, then it's logical to assume that the developers considered that restrictive enough. Much more so than assuming a mistake was made many times, but only in that specific circumstance, and not in any other conflict stunt.

[wyvern]

I dunno about you, but I like to spread out aspects to be applicable to different things--after all, a character should be about more than just what they do in a fight.

Oh, absolutely - but, by the same token, each individual aspect should *also* be usable in multiple situations.  Sure, if your aspects are "boxing gloves of doom" and "sharp left hook" and the like, that's poor design - that should all be one aspect.  But you might have "mighty boxer" (taggable as how you fight) and a trouble aspect of "heart of gold" (why you fight) and, say "horror film nut" (for being able to fight calmly against an obvious monster like a RCV, or for trying ridiculous stunts with a "well, it worked in the movies!" quip) - that's three very different aspects, two of them mostly non-combat, all of which can be - in some circumstances - tagged for straight up combat bonuses.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not true actually.  If a werewolf had the same power as a prepared wizard, it wouldn't be true to the books.

True, but not relevant. Werewolves are lower level characters than wizards, as a rule. Also, if one character can become stronger than another through preparation that's not a problem.

And power is a nebulous thing. Are White Court Vampires more powerful than mortals? Narratively, yes. Mechanically, it's the other way around (at least at normal levels of play) because FP are awesome.

It would be a problem if wizards were simply better than werewolves, but they aren't. Werewolves have significant advantages.

I guess they basically decided that the "virtual aspect" was worth a shift, reducing the effective bonus to +1 stress.  But yes, it's still a very weak stunt.

That actually makes sense. But a virtual aspect isn't worth a shift.

@Sancta: It's not a secret rule or anything. The stunt creation rules clearly state that if the situation is restricted enough, then one may increase the benefit beyond two shifts (or one shift of accuracy). If the rules say that, and then all stunts of a specific type have an increased benefit, then it's logical to assume that the developers considered that restrictive enough. Much more so than assuming a mistake was made many times, but only in that specific circumstance, and not in any other conflict stunt.

Actually the rules don't state that.

They say that non-attack stunts can be boosted to +3 or +4. There's no allowance for attack stunts beyond +1.

That could be an oversight, but it should be noted nonetheless.

The rules actually say "very, very, narrowly defined situations". "Whenever I'm trying to make someone angry" is not a very narrow situation at all.

In fact, it's arguably too broad for a non-attack +2. Bear in mind that the rules say stunts boost applications of trappings, not entire trappings.

Anyway, I'm not positing multiple mistakes here. Just one: the mistake of not making sure that the example stunt writers and the stunt rule writers were using the same rules. The example guys seem to have thought that social skills could get blanket +2s because the attack restriction was for physical attacks only. The rule writers clearly thought otherwise.

There's no way that this wasn't a mistake.

So since the book is contradictory, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is appropriate. In this case, I prefer to side with the rules against the examples. It's better for play, in my experience.

[sinker]

Actually the rules don't state that.

They say that non-attack stunts can be boosted to +3 or +4. There's no allowance for attack stunts beyond +1.

Ahh, you're right. I was remembering the rules as best I could as I had no copy at the time.

The rules actually say "very, very, narrowly defined situations". "Whenever I'm trying to make someone angry" is not a very narrow situation at all.

In fact, it's arguably too broad for a non-attack +2. Bear in mind that the rules say stunts boost applications of trappings, not entire trappings.

I would agree really, but I would also point out that it neatly solves your problem. Perhaps this came up in playtesting and they tried to fix it.

So since the book is contradictory, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is appropriate. In this case, I prefer to side with the rules against the examples. It's better for play, in my experience.

Wait a minute. In this case, you yourself are stating that the rules don't work. My assumption (that the +2 social attack stunts are intentional and should be used as examples of how to make social attack stunts moving forward) solves your problem (though it may add new problems, like are social stress stunts still worth double that of social attack stunts, and if not then how do social stress stunts remain competitive). How is siding with broken rules better for play?

[UmbraLux]

True, but not relevant. Werewolves are lower level characters than wizards, as a rule.

It is relevant when discussing character balance issues. 

Not sure what you mean by "lower level characters" - there are no character levels.  Unless you're equating "levels" with refresh spent...and, if you are, experience shows you're incorrect.  (In my experience, players tend to either spend all but one or two refresh or only spend one or two.  The game tends to disinsentivize a middle ground.)

Also, if one character can become stronger than another through preparation that's not a problem.

Hmm, I could have phrased that better.  Put it this way, in direct conflict outside of an ambush or alpha strike scenario I suspect the caster will win at least seven of ten times.  Casters get many of the advantages of an alpha strike / ambush without the need to set up aspects in bunches.

And power is a nebulous thing. Are White Court Vampires more powerful than mortals? Narratively, yes. Mechanically, it's the other way around (at least at normal levels of play) because FP are awesome.

Have to disagree here...outside of an ambush scenario where the human can set up a bunch of aspects, a WCV will generally mop the floor with a human. 

Humans, or any character with lots of fate points, are dangerous in situations where they can set up an 'alpha strike' - an ambush or prepared situation in Fate terms.  If they're spending those fate points over time they'll run out.  Meanwhile, the WCV/shapechanger/changeling with strength/toughness/recovery/damage/mental powers will keep on using said powers.

It would be a problem if wizards were simply better than werewolves, but they aren't. Werewolves have significant advantages.

Not really sure where you're going with this...but it contradicts your stance on WCVs and humans.  After all, WCVs get just about everything werewolves do without having to change shape.  On top of that they get direct mental manipulation. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Wait a minute. In this case, you yourself are stating that the rules don't work. My assumption (that the +2 social attack stunts are intentional and should be used as examples of how to make social attack stunts moving forward) solves your problem (though it may add new problems, like are social stress stunts still worth double that of social attack stunts, and if not then how do social stress stunts remain competitive). How is siding with broken rules better for play?

Your interpretation doesn't make the rules work, it just makes them broken in a different direction.

The rules are contradictory. No interpretation can reconcile them. Attempting to do so is futile. My problem is insoluble, barring errata or a new edition.

So you have to make the rules for yourself. And my experience suggests that applying normal restrictions to social stunts leads to greater balance and fun. Perhaps your experience suggests differently, but that's beside the point.

Not sure what you mean by "lower level characters" - there are no character levels.  Unless you're equating "levels" with refresh spent...and, if you are, experience shows you're incorrect.  (In my experience, players tend to either spend all but one or two refresh or only spend one or two.  The game tends to disinsentivize a middle ground.)

Chest Deep, Feet In The Water, that's what I mean by levels. Your average werewolf is probably around Up To Your Waist. OW gives a generic werewolf 7 Refresh worth of Powers and 4 skills at Good.

Your average Wizard is Submerged, and has at least one Refinement. (Your Story says each Wizard should take Refinement at least once.)

So when you play a Submerged werewolf, you play an exceptionally skilled example of werewolfkind. When you play a Submerged wizard, you play an ordinary White Council member.

Hmm, I could have phrased that better.  Put it this way, in direct conflict outside of an ambush or alpha strike scenario I suspect the caster will win at least seven of ten times.  Casters get many of the advantages of an alpha strike / ambush without the need to set up aspects in bunches.

I would agree, actually. Werewolves get better mobility, endurance, and skill selection though, so it more or less balances out. Thaumaturgy's vague level of power makes it hard to judge properly, but choosing a werewolf over a wizard is at least defensible from an optimization perspective.

I'm not saying that werewolves are stronger, but I am saying that they aren't clearly weaker.

Have to disagree here...outside of an ambush scenario where the human can set up a bunch of aspects, a WCV will generally mop the floor with a human.

I don't think so. I'd be up for a playtesting fight.

Not really sure where you're going with this...but it contradicts your stance on WCVs and humans.  After all, WCVs get just about everything werewolves do without having to change shape.  On top of that they get direct mental manipulation.

The direct mental manipulation is a weakness, mechanically. It costs Refresh, and has nothing to do with your core competencies. Taking both Strength and Incite Emotion isn't really a good idea.

And changing shape is very powerful. Human Form is only mildly annoying (in my experience) and the Refresh bonus is well worth it, while Beast Change is just awesome.