...How in the world did you managed to get 8 consequences?
at the end of that, I had 8 consequences (I have a lot of mental resilience) and lots of dots filled up and the GM gave us all fate points for how many consequences we had, so I ended with 11 fate points, healing from the NPCs in the area get rid of some of the mild consequences...
...
there's a stunt in the book (Resilient Self Image) that gives 2 extra mild consequences for mental, plus Conviction 5 is another extra so
Four Mild Mentals
One Moderate Mental
One Severe Mental
One Mild Physical
One Moderate Physical
One Severe Physical
So the character, if stats are remembered right, had 9 possible consequences she could fill before getting to extreme
She was the ONLY character in the game that never took recovery or toughness powers
there's a stunt in the book (Resilient Self Image) that gives 2 extra mild consequences for mental, plus Conviction 5 is another extra so
Four Mild Mentals
One Moderate Mental
One Severe Mental
One Mild Physical
One Moderate Physical
One Severe Physical
So the character, if stats are remembered right, had 9 possible consequences she could fill before getting to extreme
She was the ONLY character in the game that never took recovery or toughness powers
Also, you don't get a separate set of mild, moderate and severe consequences for your physical and mental stress tracks. You have one mild consequence, one moderate consequence, and one severe consequence, each of which can be filled with a physical, mental, or social consequence. Thus, if you use your mild consequence slot on a mental consequence from casting, you don't have that slot available when you're hit with a physical attack, and would need to use a moderate or severe consequence to soak it. The first time I read the rules, I thought each stress track had a separate list of consequences, but this is not the case.
So with Conviction 5 and a stunt that adds a mild mental consequence (Resilient Self-Image applies only to torture, as InFerrum mentioned), your list of consequences would look like this:
Two Mild Mental Consequences
One Mild Consequence
One Moderate Consequence
One Severe Consequence
For a total of five consequences.
Uhhh...Khalis is correct, there's only one consequence list without stunts. That doesn't mean you take "broken ribs" in a social conflict. It means once you've take "Ashamed to Show My Face in Public" as your moderate consequence from a social combat you don't have a moderate consequence to take in physical combat.
This is not correct.
Each stress track /does/ have an exclusive consequence set.
It makes no sense to take "broken ribs" as a consequence to social conflict.
Khalis is correct, there's only one consequence list without stunts. That doesn't mean you take "broken ribs" in a social conflict. It means once you've take "Ashamed to Show My Face in Public" as your moderate consequence from a social combat you don't have a moderate consequence to take in physical combat.
Uhhh...
This is not correct.
Each stress track /does/ have an exclusive consequence set.
It makes no sense to take "broken ribs" as a consequence to social conflict.
"Each character may take one [consequence] of each severity ... once the consequence slot is used, it cannot be used again until the current consequence is removed"
That doesn't make any sense to me. At all.
It's also not how any of the PbP games are played that I am aware of.
I won't be changing my game unless Fred himself says something about this. It doesn't seem right to me.
If the consequence list is really that short, not only are all characters much less powerful, but it makes the stunts giving an extra consequence FAR more powerful.
Hmmmm....
So if this is the case, it seems to me that inhuman recovery should affect mental, social, and physical consequences.
Otherwise, it's fairly expensively priced. No?
I wholeheartedly disagree that recovery is expensively priced as-is. It doesn't affect mental or social consequences, but physical consequences are by far the most common consequence suffered in a combat situation, so recovery fulfills its job of bouncing you back after a fight quite nicely. Also, don't forget the benefits of the Tireless stunt equivalent, plus the ability to clear a mild physical consequence once per scene (which is more valuable than it would be if everyone had nine to start).
Plus, it just plain wouldn't make sense for a creature's fast healing to affect its damaged reputation.
I won't be changing my game unless Fred himself says something about this. It doesn't seem right to me.It's specified on YS204. "Each character may take one of each severity...once the consequence slot is used, it cannot be used again until the current consequence is removed."
If the consequence list is really that short, not only are all characters much less powerful, but it makes the stunts giving an extra consequence FAR more powerful.Yep! I see this as a feature! :) SotC was too over the top, DFRPG is just gritty enough. Though I still need to try out Diaspora one day...
That doesn't make any sense to me. At all.
It's also not how any of the PbP games are played that I am aware of.
None of this makes any sense to me.
I see "floored about the past" and "broken ribs" as mutually exclusive, but under the RAW as we are arguing it, they would take up the same slot.
Plus, every game is different. Some games have more social conflict than others.
I think it is /retarded/ that in a fight with a bad guy, a character could opt to make a really good/bad insult, and fill up a moderate consequence on a bad guy, and that bad guy would not be able to take a moderate physical consequence during the fight anymore.
That is...silly.
Hopefully Fred can clarify this for us. I can't believe this hasn't come up before now, to be honest.
With regard to your last point about a character making a really good insult to fill up a bad guy's moderate consequence, I think it would definitely seem unrealistic from a perspective that assumes everyone has three consequences for each stress track, because that seems to imply each set of consequences is a direct measure of a character's fortitude in that department, sort of like stress. I imagine it seems as absurd as somebody making an Intimidate check in D&D to deal hit point damage. However, I think consequences are better conceptualized in a more narrative sense. Sure, that moderate social consequence doesn't actually lessen the amount of physical damage the bad guy can take, but it does throw him off his game and contribute to the next big hit landing harder (having to take a severe physical instead of a moderate).
All that said, however, I would hesitate to allow social stress/consequences to be dealt in the middle of a physical fight. Social combat seems like it's supposed to be a completely different arena from physical combat. Characters could definitely use social skills in the context of a physical fight (insults, threats, distractions etc.), but I would resolve these as maneuvers, rather than straight-up social attacks.
I don't see why social attacks could not be performed in combat.Social attacks aren't generally appropriate in combat due to time limitations. To me, you've described a potentially successful social maneuver above - it might create aspects such as Fear of Reinforcements or Must Finish this Now! Useful and effective...but not going to cause social damage. Social damage is reputational (Everyone Saw those Pictures!) or personal (Shamed by My Actions, Too Confused to Recognize Truth, or even Deeply Sorry). Either way, they rely on how others see you or your fear of how others see you. Rumors and innuendo take time to spread, they don't happen in a few seconds.
Like... deceit roll against a powerful enemy while taking cover, "You'd better leave fast if you want to live. I have about 20 people coming on the way right now!"
Definitely seems appropriate to me.
I don't see why social attacks could not be performed in combat.
Like... deceit roll against a powerful enemy while taking cover, "You'd better leave fast if you want to live. I have about 20 people coming on the way right now!"
Definitely seems appropriate to me.
On the contrary, I don't see why social attacks need to be included in physical combat. It seems like an unnecessary complication.
I would treat that Deceit roll as a maneuver to place the aspect "He's Got Backup Coming?!" on the enemy. The aspect could then be tagged or invoked as normal, either for the normal +2 or as a compel to get the enemy to retreat (and getting the enemy to withdraw seems like the objective of such a tactic in the first place). That seems simpler and more elegant than dealing with the social stress track.
The book also seems to imply that social combat is an entirely different beast in a way that mental combat isn't. Social combat has its own method of determining initiative (Empathy, rather than Alertness), and there are no powers that deal social stress in the way that Incite Emotion deals mental stress. It seems like aside from those rare, exclusively mental conflicts that happen every so often, mental attacks/stress are a subset of physical combat, while social combat is a different method of conflict resolution.
Plus, if an enemy could be Taken Out of a physical combat by dealing social stress, you could create a character who wins firefights just by hurling insults, which doesn't seem to make any sense. Working an enemy into a blind, frothing rage is a time-honored way of setting them up for the killing blow, but this can be accomplished by stacking maneuvers with social skills and tagging them all for a physical attack. Dealing social stress just doesn't seem appropriate in a physical combat situation.
Edit: UmbraLux makes good points too. Social combat seems to take place at a different speed than physical combat.
Implications are not RAW.If you want RAW (though I'm really less than fond of RAW arguments), check out YS315. "Whenever a PC is attempting an action where time is important, choose a reasonable increment on the ladder as the starting point... Reasonable is, of course, extremely group dependent. If your group decides instant social damage is reasonable, go for it. ;)
If you want RAW (though I'm really less than fond of RAW arguments), check out YS315. "Whenever a PC is attempting an action where time is important, choose a reasonable increment on the ladder as the starting point... Reasonable is, of course, extremely group dependent. If your group decides instant social damage is reasonable, go for it. ;)
Implications are not RAW.
If characters can take mental stress from something disturbing they see in combat (and they can), then I see no reason why social stress cannot be taken as well.
Additionally, it makes sense to socially take out a character during combat.
Like, oh, "Luke, I am your father!". ;)
Point for Bumblingbear.
"Social conflicts occur when the opposing agendas of two or more characters are resolved without physical violence, calling upon a different set of skills and trappings to resolve them. The damage done by these conflicts can be highly variable, ranging from simply instilling a false sense of security in the loser to ruining his public reputation and hurting his relationships."
"Being able to attack the mental stress track is no small feat. The kind of abuse necessary to inflict this kind of damage on another person usually takes a great deal of time and energy .... Between mortals, some sort of prior connection or justification must exist to inflict mental stress and consequences."
Does it take more than an instant for an "Oh shit" moment to sink in?To me, every one of these would be better as a maneuver subsequently invoked for effect. That will end the fight faster than going for a take out...whatever track you're targeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get into a fight with a guy at a bar, you hit him hard, and he says, "You a-hole. I'm a cop!"
Instant social consequence with a good social attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a bad guy duking it out with a group in a park they lured you to. You toss magic around, and one member of the group suddenly says, "This is accorded nuetral ground, and a pixie just watched you try to kill us! Nah nah nah nah nah!"
Social attack. Probable social consequence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental and physical consequences are a very real tool in combat, which is why there is a Psyops corp in the military.
It's why you can say, "I've got AIDs!" during a fight as an attack.
I want an official (at least as official as we can get) word from Fred on this.Honestly, play it however your group is comfortable. No matter what anyone says. :)
our group was facing the Dullahand, sort of the Fae version of the Grim Reaper, the inspiration for the Headless Horseman stories
As the group caster, I decided to cast a spell to set up the Fae in the center of an intense magnetic field as a definition for a weapon 8 Earth attack.
I ended up having to take a few consequences and spending some fate points to make to go off right, but the result was several cars, rebar, a hummer full of WWII era grenades and other assorted area debris slamming into him...
only to discover that he wasn't that easily killed
so, immediately afterward they decide we want to seal him away at least temporarily so we can book, so now I'm helping craft an iron ring and rushing through a binding ritual as the guy is coming back together, with help from the rest of the party (they volunteered to take some consequences for the ritual...adding their blood to the binding)
then I had to use earth magic to bury it deep enough that someone simply walking through the area wasn't going to break the circle.
finally, we learn that one of our number had been infected with balefire in the fight and thus the binding was going to last about half the time we thought it would since while binding him, it was also supercharging his healing
meanwhile, we had to cleanse the party member of balefire before it killed him
at the end of that, I had 8 consequences (I have a lot of mental resilience) and lots of dots filled up and the GM gave us all fate points for how many consequences we had, so I ended with 11 fate points, healing from the NPCs in the area get rid of some of the mild consequences...
and then we decided to contact the Archive about our Denarian related apocalypse situation and someone got the bright idea to open a portal directly to her, for which we needed a heavy load of power....
but first they want me to look at something in a museum with my sight and I find that a Winter veil has covered a Denarian curse around a display case that's supposed to hold the Papal ring coming soon, that cost some fate points to escape more consequences
queue the Dullahand I had sealed earlier and who was getting ready to escape...so we return to where he was bound and wait for just the moment that he escapes before he's free, but after his power is accessible....and drain him dry of power (at least temporarily) to open rifts in space through which the Archive and Kinkaid come
also at this time, I had to have the Sight up to time the spell correctly, so when the extra unintended rifts open up I get a nice eyeview right into some Nevernever underworld....on top of what was going on staring at the Dullahand
more rifts than we wanted open up and a horde of little gremlin thingies come swarming out and we cover for the archive as she cleans up our(my) sloppy spellcasting (at this point I'm operating with "gaping wounds" and "bleeding eyes and ears" physical consequences as well as a small handful of not yet recovered mental milds) I do a couple of simple spells including a "cloud of iron dust" to test to see if the enemy were fae (they weren't...I should probably apologize to the team half-orc at this point) and then the gremlin things smell the blood from my wounds and tons of them come swarming toward me...
At this point, I take a concession to electrocute everything within 10ft of me.
And I'm taken out...
I wake up later when my injuries are mostly gone somehow...something about the supernatural recovering Pharoah Reborn and a blood transfusion....which is how my character's idiot brother became said PCs vassal, so hoping the Pharoah character doesn't think about that....
And then I learn that my character's yakuza assassin family has decided to send a group inbound to "rescue" me from the Wardens....
who are vaguely suspicious (probably convinced) that I'm a warlock and only the greater issue of Denarians, Loki and Maeve plotting some sort of Doomsday thing is keeping them from running a full trial on me....
As I said, saying, "I've got AIDs!" in a fight fight is very likely to take the opponent out or cause a concession.Or your opponent could well reply, "Is that a proposition?" And the person that said he had AIDS is very likely to be taken out or offer a concession with that.
Four, period, as imolied by the character sheet -- but you can gain
additional typed consequence slots through stunts and their ilk.
I believe social stress can be done in combat there are examples in the novel where people are talked down in the midst of violence and the concept of combat banter is standard for a heroic game. If you can talk, gesture, emote etc then in my opinion you can take part in some form of social combat and it makes sense especially in the case of intimidation which is part of battle.I still haven't seen any examples of a social attack during physical combat which can't be modeled (usually better) by a maneuver followed by invoking for effect.
I'm with Bear. If you can't perform social and mental attacks during a fist fight then what's the point of having damage tracks for them? Or consequences? Or anything?Stress isn't damage. Consequences are damage. Stress is simply how tough and resilient you are against some class of attacks.
It reduces my character to only being useful in the ball room scene BEFORE the big fight? Which means my actions are less consequential because the GM is going to have that big fight coming regardless. Now I'm not saying there aren't a thousand ways to work around that, but my point is why work around it? Why have all the rules and trappings for social attacks if they're only for the snipping and repartee' during the pre-brawl? If you can't mix it all up, if they have to stay exactly separate fights, then what's the point? My social character in a group of thugs is just gonna end up sitting around, twiddling his thumbs, waiting for that ONE scene in the arc when I get to shine, like most other RPGs. One of the cool things about this game is exactly this mechanic that makes a social character a serious threat. You can clever your way out of any fight in a pinch. But if you can't mix the three then what's the point? All those social attacks become the bone you throw. "Here. Go diplomacy it up. Then we're having our rocket launcher fight."Maneuver, maneuver, maneuver! :)
I still haven't seen any examples of a social attack during physical combat which can't be modeled (usually better) by a maneuver followed by invoking for effect.
Invoking for effect is powerful. Give someone reason to fear and they may run...without having to go through their stress and consequence tracks. Of course it needs to fit the situation and opponent's personality, but that's why we role play!
Stress isn't damage. Consequences are damage. Stress is simply how tough and resilient you are against some class of attacks.
Maneuver, maneuver, maneuver! :)
Seriously. Distractions, sowing seeds of doubt, perhaps even giving cause for fear...all those and more are maneuvers. In some situations you might invoke one for effect to cause an end to combat. In others you'll hand a bunch of aspects off to your friend the combat monster who is going to gain massive bonuses because you've confused, distracted, and frightened your opponent.
Maneuvers are awesome!
However, if you can do a social maneuver, you can also do a social attack.Not true if you're trying to maintain something close to lifelike verisimilitude. And only true mechanically if your group agrees both reasonably fit the same time frame.
Not true if you're trying to maintain something close to lifelike verisimilitude. And only true mechanically if your group agrees both reasonably fit the same time frame.
Consider just what social damage / consequences are - long term loss of reputation, shame, perhaps depression (though that may be mental), lost respect, etc. Those things don't happen on the same time scale as bullets.
However, a momentary (as in not going to cause long term consequences) doubt, fear, confusion, distraction, and more can and do occur in a physical combat's time scale. They're simply not going to be something the character is still dealing with a week or a month later.
I can see it happening though. In a fight, people's egos are particularly exposed. A high deceit roll like "I killed your father," would be a wonderful attack. Sure, it can be a maneuver to place an aspect. But you could also be socially damaging a character and forcing a consequence like "Enraged" (which, while it can be an aspect is also a rather potent social consequence).
Yes, bullets work very fast. Much faster than swords. Much faster than fists. Much faster than feet. They're a poor time reference. Combat exchanges aren't a set time. They're fluid.
But the book specifically calls it a social attack and a social defense skill and social damage. That's what it says. I'm not arguing against Fred here, I'm just saying, maneuvers are great and all, but if they were the best thing since sliced bread and were my bread and butter then why do I have social attack and defense skills. Not social skills that oppose each other, mind you, but skills the book specifically labels "Your social attack" and "your social defense"?
Because these are the skills that you use to attack and defend in a social conflict! Social conflicts are outlined on YS 215, after the rules for physical conflicts. Social conflicts use Empathy to determine initiative, rather than Alertness (which is a big sign, from my perspective, that social conflicts are meant to be an entirely different method of conflict resolution). A character with high social skills will be far from useless in a fight, as social skills can be used to maneuver, but really comes into his own in a social conflict, where his social skills can be used to directly attack the enemy.
I can see it happening though. In a fight, people's egos are particularly exposed. A high deceit roll like "I killed your father," would be a wonderful attack. Sure, it can be a maneuver to place an aspect. But you could also be socially damaging a character and forcing a consequence like "Enraged" (which, while it can be an aspect is also a rather potent social consequence).I'd argue that "I killed your father." was the end result of a long chain of misinformation which also took advantage of one or more character aspects. That's actually a good way to justify social attacks in combat though...a lot of work setting things up followed by the 'reveal' (and judicious use of fate points).
Yes, bullets work very fast. Much faster than swords. Much faster than fists. Much faster than feet. They're a poor time reference. Combat exchanges aren't a set time. They're fluid.Fluid to a degree yes. Just how fluid is dependent on each group. :)
But why have them if they're so completely separate? Again, it becomes that bone you through your noble before the inevitable brawl with the equally inevitable thumb twiddling and cringing. Now, don't get me wrong. That's hyperbole. But it's valid hyperbole that services a point. Either social attacks are viable attacks that are integrated into the game play, which means it's silly that "shamed" can take the place of "broken ribs", or social attacks are to be completely relegated to a separate arena, which if that's the case, it drastically lowers its value as being part of the world as a whole. It becomes a mini-game. It's kind of like an rpg "separate but equal" argument and falls apart for similar reasons. Again, hyperbole, I'm not making a literal comparison and realize that I'm comparing trivialities and amusements to important stuff, I'm just trying to show a logical similarity, not a moral one, if you take my meaning.You appear to be making a big assumption...that physical combat logically follows after social. There are a variety of situations where physical combat isn't really an option. Perhaps you want something other than death or injury. (Consider trying to clear an unruly mob from a nightclub before the vamps show up. Do you really want to attack them? Convincing them to leave seems a better option.) Perhaps the current situation prevents you from using force. (Consider a trial.
Perhaps your opponent simply outclasses you.If your opponent simply outclasses you, bend over and enjoy. Using a different tool doesn't work if your opponent simply outclasses you.
If your opponent simply outclasses you, bend over and enjoy. Using a different tool doesn't work if your opponent simply outclasses you.Meh. You're assuming the opponent wants you dead or injured. Look at Harry's interactions with Mab as an example. She wants something from him. In the end, she appears to get it. But there are books of social interaction leading up to that...
You appear to be making a big assumption...that physical combat logically follows after social. There are a variety of situations where physical combat isn't really an option. Perhaps you want something other than death or injury. (Consider trying to clear an unruly mob from a nightclub before the vamps show up. Do you really want to attack them? Convincing them to leave seems a better option.) Perhaps the current situation prevents you from using force. (Consider a trial.) Perhaps your opponent simply outclasses you. (Pull a gun on the Winter Queen...then roll up a new character because she probably has a new hound.) Or it could be some combination of those.(click to show/hide)
Just because social and physical combat may be separate doesn't mean one becomes useless. It means you use the tool needed for the current job.
All I'm saying is while I'm making format assumptions that this is how things go, you're making equal assumptions that it's not.Actually I've repeatedly said it's up to the group to decide what time frames are 'reasonable'. I've also avoided any standard formulaic of X then Y. All in an attempt to avoid assumptions.
Meh. You're assuming the opponent wants you dead or injured. Look at Harry's interactions with Mab as an example. She wants something from him. In the end, she appears to get it. But there are books of social interaction leading up to that...I did not assume that the opponent want the character dead or injured. If an opponent outclasses you, it doesn't matter if you talk. He will outtalk you. It doesn't matter if you fight. He will outfight you. That is what being outclassed means.
Could she have simply killed him? Probably. But that wouldn't have met her goals. However, it was enough of a threat for Harry to avoid initiating open hostilities.
This is one instance where I am going to go against RAW apparently - on the stress track thing.
I am not a hero - at least not anymore. ;P But if I am dealing with a mental or social consequence, like... "Crushing worry about debt", and I were to get into a fight, I could still be "brusied", "ankle sprained", and "wrenched arm". Those are three physical consequences on top of a social or mental consequence... and it's /realistic/.
So now rather than argue that, I think it would be cool if someone could get an official Fred word about social conflict during combat.
This is one instance where I am going to go against RAW apparently - on the stress track thing.
I am not a hero - at least not anymore. ;P But if I am dealing with a mental or social consequence, like... "Crushing worry about debt", and I were to get into a fight, I could still be "brusied", "ankle sprained", and "wrenched arm". Those are three physical consequences on top of a social or mental consequence... and it's /realistic/.
I know it's a game, and I know that not all RAW are going to 100% emulate RL or canon, but come on. We are playing heroes or villains. I just don't jive with the party giving a bad guy a minor, moderate, and serious social consequence in an argument a couple of days before a battle....
And then the bad guy only having a minor physical consequence during the fight because his moderate and serious slots are filled up with social stuff.
To me, that makes no sense.
So now rather than argue that, I think it would be cool if someone could get an official Fred word about social conflict during combat.
Pretty sure that that's not what he means, InferrumVeritas. I think he's asking about the usefulness of social attacks during physical fights.
Personally, I like the current ambiguity. Talking down your opponents should be occasionally viable, I think. But certainly not always.
I view consequences as an out-of-game abstraction, so the interaction between various types of consequence does not bother me at all.
I want an official (at least as official as we can get) word from Fred on this.
As I said, saying, "I've got AIDs!" in a fight fight is very likely to take the opponent out or cause a concession.
To me, that is a social or mental attack.
I think that it was just misworded in the book.
Such as, "A social attack takes place when no bodily harm is being done" or something like that.
From a purely game-balance perspective, I would have to say 'no' to dealing social stress while in the midst of physical combat.
<snip>
To put it simply, let's say you have Soulcrusher McFightmaster and Charisma Sparklypants. The former is largely incapable of threatening the latter in social conflicts. The reverse - that Sparklypants can't really threaten Soulcrusher in physical conflicts - should also be true.
So yeah, I'd say limit social skills to maneuvers in physical combat.
This never feels lie a problem to me. Probably because SotC only had one stress track. To me, the question is always does taking stress make sense in context given the situation? If no one's brain is breaking, then seems like dice should be rolling.Point of order, Spirit of the Century has two stress tracks - Physical and Composure. I know 'cause I was just looking over the book today to see how they went about doing Minions and Companions.
Point of order, Spirit of the Century has two stress tracks - Physical and Composure. I know 'cause I was just looking over the book today to see how they went about doing Minions and Companions.You're right. We've been playing sotc without any stress tracks at all. House rules mess with the memory.
You're right. We've been playing sotc without any stress tracks at all. House rules mess with the memory.Spirit of the Century is also REALLY WEIRD to compare Dresden Files to because the characters are so much more powerful. You have ten aspects, none of which have to be a trouble or a high concept and you receive ten fate points each session and you have the equivalent of five refresh spent in powers/stunts. Not to mention you start out with five boxes of stress instead of 2.