ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: JoshTheValiant on March 08, 2012, 09:38:59 PM
-
I recently converted my months-old D&D game to the DFRPG (surprisingly easy to do, as long as you don't care about direct conversion and instead care about concepts), and one of the sample conflicts we ran involved our two main melee combatants sparring with each other to get a hold of how stress and defense and consequences work.
This worked great until our resident cantankerous Deva started trash talking. Immediate question: If Empathy determines social initiative, and Alertness handles physical initiative, what happens when someone in a physical conflict finds themselves forced to engage in a social conflict alongside it? Should they check their initiative skill at the beginning of each exchange depending on which conflict they're invested in? Or are there other ways the board has figured out to deal with the situation of mixed conflicts?
-
I just let them do social attacks on their turn, mix it all into the same conflict. Running two conflicts simultaneously like that would just be overly confusing.
To determine turn order, just go with whatever type of conflict it started as. And if one's going to continue trying to talk while the other is using his fists, then do Empathy of the first guy vs. Alertness of the second.
-
In a situation like that, the trash talk could do one of two things, I think.
1)
It is simply there to aid the fight. Make your opponent nervous, etc. In that case, I don't see the need to switch things to social conflict measures.
2)
Switch the physical conflict to a social conflict. In that case any actual fighting that would remain would only be aiding the social conflict. It would be to humiliate the opponent, rather than hurt them.
-
See, I'd always just played such that, even if you're in a physical fight, you can still make mental or social attacks, and if any one is taken out, he loses the fight. Either he surrenders to a point you made or his brain shuts down or something.
Maybe throw in some free Aspects that can be tagged in a situation, like adrenalin's flowing too hotly for words to have the same impact or something.
-
See, I'd always just played such that, even if you're in a physical fight, you can still make mental or social attacks, and if any one is taken out, he loses the fight. Either he surrenders to a point you made or his brain shuts down or something.
Bad idea, in my opinion.
See, if I make a character with decent Athletics and Endurance and a Toughness power, then my character should be pretty tough to take down in a fight. I shouldn't need Discipline and Rapport and Conviction and Presence unless something weird is going on.
Plus, social attacks will generally be unreasonably effective against dedicated combatants. A character with a superb social attack skill could one-shot Sue the zombie dinosaur.
And if Sue went up against herself, she'd have more luck attacking with Intimidation than with Fists.
If you think that Sue should have some kind of immunity to social attacks despite not having any such thing written on her character sheet, then substitute something slightly smarter but just as strong for her.
More discussion here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22660.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22660.0.html)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27018.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27018.0.html)
PS: What was the heckler saying that would qualify as a social attack? Most heckling would be a maneuver.
-
Bad idea, in my opinion.
See, if I make a character with decent Athletics and Endurance and a Toughness power, then my character should be pretty tough to take down in a fight. I shouldn't need Discipline and Rapport and Conviction and Presence unless something weird is going on.
Plus, social attacks will generally be unreasonably effective against dedicated combatants. A character with a superb social attack skill could one-shot Sue the zombie dinosaur.
And if Sue went up against herself, she'd have more luck attacking with Intimidation than with Fists.
If you think that Sue should have some kind of immunity to social attacks despite not having any such thing written on her character sheet, then substitute something slightly smarter but just as strong for her.
More discussion here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22660.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22660.0.html)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27018.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27018.0.html)
PS: What was the heckler saying that would qualify as a social attack? Most heckling would be a maneuver.
I actually agree 100%.
I'm pretty against a lot of things about social combat, which can be found in other threads. I won't get into it here.
-
A LOT of good points, there.
I think it should still be possible to talk someone into giving up even when the fists start flying, but it should be a LOT harder to do during combat than around a table.
I'll talk with my group and see what they want to do.
-
Bad idea, in my opinion.
See, if I make a character with decent Athletics and Endurance and a Toughness power, then my character should be pretty tough to take down in a fight. I shouldn't need Discipline and Rapport and Conviction and Presence unless something weird is going on.
Plus, social attacks will generally be unreasonably effective against dedicated combatants. A character with a superb social attack skill could one-shot Sue the zombie dinosaur.
And if Sue went up against herself, she'd have more luck attacking with Intimidation than with Fists.
If you think that Sue should have some kind of immunity to social attacks despite not having any such thing written on her character sheet, then substitute something slightly smarter but just as strong for her.
More discussion here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22660.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22660.0.html)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27018.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27018.0.html)
PS: What was the heckler saying that would qualify as a social attack? Most heckling would be a maneuver.
Yeah, social stuff in a physical combat situation I'd just treat as maneuvers alone. And even if you did treat them as attacks, as the gamebooks say, being taken out socially doesn't mean you're taken out Physically, and vice verse. Quite the opposite, in fact: I'd imagine more than a few physical conflicts start because someone just lost a social conflict.
That said, any kind of, "No, you can't talk the zombie down" stuff I'd treat as Compels or GM fiat because, well, it doesn't make sense that you could intimidate a giant zombie dinosaur.
-
In Dogs in the Vineyard, for instance, the escalation level of a given conflict determines the intensity of the Fallout (aka Consequences), as well as how competent a character is with that type of conflict.
Players have four ability scores (Acuity, Heart, Body, and Will) which determine dice pools, and four levels of escalation (talking, physical, fisticuffs, and gunfighting). Each of those levels of escalation uses two of those ability scores. When the conflict escalates, you bring in any new dice you have left for that level of conflict. So if you go from talking, to pushing, to fighting, to guns, you will have eventually blown through your dice for all four of your ability scores. And if you had any bad turns (took Fallout), the Fallout will range from smaller dice to much larger dice, and the larger the dice, the more likely it is you will have been injured or killed in a fight (gunfighting, as you can imagine, is a surefire - ha ha - way to get death results).
So the level of escalation is self-policing: you're only bringing in the ability scores appropriate to that level of escalation, and any lasting damage you take is going to be appropriate to that type of conflict. The gunfighter who isn't very socially adept is going to fare poorly in a battle of words. The diplomat shouldn't pull out a gun first thing in a conflict. But in an important conflict, all characters will likely have burned through all of their dice, and escalated through all levels of conflict, so it kinda evens out, and the only difference is how the dice fell and how tactically people used their abilities.
I explained all that to explain this: in DFRPG, the Consequences are basically the same. They may differ slightly in how they can be worked off, but they all take up the same battery of Consequence slots, and a person who has been hit hard by a Social Conflict is going to be less equipped to take Consequences in a physical confrontation. It's how the game works, and it's kind of how the fiction works. Stunts or high skills may give someone *more* slots for a particular type of Consequence.
So it becomes vital to establish *what* a given conflict is, and parse all attacks/maneuvers/etc. in ways which pertain to that conflict.
-
Honestly, it's always made very little sense to me that someone would be that much closer to losing a fist fight because of a Severe social consequence, which is part of the reason my group doesn't do much straight up Social conflicts, and when they have happened, they're fairly low-level affairs.
-
Lots of good points here, thanks to everyone who's weighed in. I hadn't considered the "talking out the colossus" angle before, since I haven't ever really thrown my players against anything mind numbingly beastly (except that one time with the dragon, and even that wasn't so bad), but that alone is a huge thing for me to consider for the future. I think I'll stick with the escalation model that was referenced... and go investigate Dogs In The Vineyard for plunder potential. It seems like an interesting abstraction system.
Re: Social Consequences messing up a Physical Conflict, I think that's a matter of interpretation. If your Mild Social Consequence looks like "Butt Of A Really Good Joke", then yeah, I can't imagine that interfering much with a fight afterward. If, on the other hand, it looks like "Stomach-Clenching Embarassment", it seems more likely to mess with the focus of the fighter in a much more negative way. I think it's mostly a matter of interpretation more than a problem with the system.
On the other hand, I can definitely see lobbying for reversing the order of Stress and Consequences, or even going pure Consequence, which every type of conflict having its own list, nothing shared. Frankly, I like that idea better, but I've always been a fan of individual injury tracking. (I'm a recovering GURPS player, simulation is in my blood. I'm still regularly tempted to regulate Aspects into static effects in a Stunt-like fashion)
-
Re: Social Consequences messing up a Physical Conflict, I think that's a matter of interpretation. If your Mild Social Consequence looks like "Butt Of A Really Good Joke", then yeah, I can't imagine that interfering much with a fight afterward. If, on the other hand, it looks like "Stomach-Clenching Embarassment", it seems more likely to mess with the focus of the fighter in a much more negative way. I think it's mostly a matter of interpretation more than a problem with the system.
On the other hand, I can definitely see lobbying for reversing the order of Stress and Consequences, or even going pure Consequence, which every type of conflict having its own list, nothing shared. Frankly, I like that idea better, but I've always been a fan of individual injury tracking. (I'm a recovering GURPS player, simulation is in my blood. I'm still regularly tempted to regulate Aspects into static effects in a Stunt-like fashion)
Honestly, that's how I thought it was originally, because with them all shared, it leads to things like, "Okay, I got shot and Taken Out because...I took a Severe Consequence when I terminally embarrassed myself in front of my family at a party six months ago? What?"
The whole Social conflict/stress/consequences thing just seems so far removed from Physical or Mental conflicts that, to me at least, it doesn't make any sense that they should be on the same spectrum and affect one another like that. The book says it doesn't really make sense for someone to die of embarrassment, but in a real, rules-wise sense, it's entirely possible to get your ass kicked because of totally unrelated social stuff.
-
I wrote a power called Mindless (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19934.msg1272175/topicseen.html#msg1272175) for creatures like Sue. Planning to expand it to cover animal intelligence. It provides more-or-less complete immunity to social and mental attacks. I suggest you check it out.
/shameless self-promotion.
Consequences are an Out-Of-Game thing. Being easier to punch out because of your Severe Social Consequence is like being easier to punch out because you spent all your FP in a social conflict.
This is the only interpretation that makes sense. There are plenty of physical consequences that shouldn't really affect your combat capabilities either.
If you eliminate stress tracks and just use consequences, you should probably remove the ability to tag consequences. Otherwise the death spiral is too prevalent.
-
Honestly, it's always made very little sense to me that someone would be that much closer to losing a fist fight because of a Severe social consequence, which is part of the reason my group doesn't do much straight up Social conflicts, and when they have happened, they're fairly low-level affairs.
You really have to consider two things. Firstly you have to consider that someone's consequences are representative of their greater health. When you are depressed you are much less likely to put greater effort into anything, much more likely to give up with little resistance. Even doctors these days are realizing that your physical health is not the only part of your health, and that problems in your greater health can lead to problems in your physical health.
And secondly you have to think about what severe social consequences are. I can totally see "My girlfriend dumped me" influencing someone's ability to do anything. Or perhaps "Friendless". Remember that severe consequences are supposed to be severe. Lesser consequences may still influence physical conflict, but of course they will do so in a lesser fashion and are less likely to given the recovery time.
As for social conflict within physical, some of it is just impractical. Do you realize that some social actions take upwards of 10 minutes to a half an hour to complete? You could have several physical conflicts in that time.
-
Consequences are an Out-Of-Game thing. Being easier to punch out because of your Severe Social Consequence is like being easier to punch out because you spent all your FP in a social conflict.
This is the only interpretation that makes sense. There are plenty of physical consequences that shouldn't really affect your combat capabilities either.
If you eliminate stress tracks and just use consequences, you should probably remove the ability to tag consequences. Otherwise the death spiral is too prevalent.
Yes, I understand all that. I'm just saying it twigs on my sense of cause and effect. Even if a physical consequence doesn't affect your ability to fight, it still makes sense that you can only rack up so many injuries before it's too much. Or that your Mental consequences mean you're not on the ball enough to focus.
It makes less sense to me that you could fill up your consequence slots from getting reamed in a social conflict, and then in the next scene the badass warrior/wizard/whatever you're playing gets taken down from one shot despite being physically and mentally perfectly fine.
You really have to consider two things. Firstly you have to consider that someone's consequences are representative of their greater health. When you are depressed you are much less likely to put greater effort into anything, much more likely to give up with little resistance. Even doctors these days are realizing that your physical health is not the only part of your health, and that problems in your greater health can lead to problems in your physical health.
And secondly you have to think about what severe social consequences are. I can totally see "My girlfriend dumped me" influencing someone's ability to do anything. Or perhaps "Friendless". Remember that severe consequences are supposed to be severe. Lesser consequences may still influence physical conflict, but of course they will do so in a lesser fashion and are less likely to given the recovery time.
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.
But like I said, it's just my personal thing, I'm not arguing that the rules should be changed, just saying it doesn't make a whole ton of sense to me.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
@Mr Death: Physical consequences don't have to be injuries, though they usually are. The effects of a nasty disease or an accidental haircut with a sword could also be physical consequences and neither has any effect on your ability to fight.
It's also worth bearing in mind that most people don't get consequences. A weapon 2 gun fired with Good skill will kill most people in one attempt. Those people can't just take a mild or a moderate in order to survive.
If you survive an attack by taking a consequence, that's not normal. It's you getting saved from an attack by the narrative fiat of the person running you. It's practically divine intervention.
@Silverblaze: You are not making sense to me. Are you under the impression that once someone rolls Empathy for initiative everyone loses the ability to fight?
There's nothing stopping you from replying to social-dude's attempt to initiate a social scene by walking away or punching him, as far as I know.
-
In general I'm not a big fan of DFRPG's social combat*. Consequently I tend to use it for pacing more than anything else. That said, a "You made me look bad so I'm going to kick your a$$!" reaction is something I see as a valid concession to social conflict...and an escalation to physical.
Losing an argument doesn't need to mean you're beaten and conceding a verbal argument in favor of physical is a time honored response. (Usually by bullies in grade school but, if combat is an option...)
*Diaspora's model interests me some...it's more interesting than beating each other with verbal fists until someone cries uncle.
-
@Mr Death: Physical consequences don't have to be injuries, though they usually are. The effects of a nasty disease or an accidental haircut with a sword could also be physical consequences and neither has any effect on your ability to fight.
A nasty disease will sap your strength at the very least, which definitely affects your ability to fight. Hell, try running when you have a cough; it's definitely not easy.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't accept an accidental haircut as a consequence--it's stress, tops. A consequence should be, well, consequential--it should have some real affect on whatever track it's associated with. If it's physical, it should affect you physically, otherwise how the heck is it going to be compelled? A close-call haircut only affects you superficially unless you happen to be Samson, and robs whoever inflicted the consequence of a reasonable tag.
-
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.
Huh. Point noted and ceded. I guess I inferred stress > consequence rather than actually reading it. Cool beans.
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.
As long as we're sharing pennies, I'll throw in mine: Part of the reason I latched onto Fate was BECAUSE of Social Combat. I loved the idea of having a concrete mechanic for a debate or a shouting match or whatever else. I don't like forcing players to be eloquent and confident speakers just because they're playing one. Roleplaying, imo, is the decision making process, not the application of the solution. The ability to portray an imaginary character is a huge draw for this kind of game, and social fantasy fulfillment is just as vital in my mind as physical or supernatural ones.
My only problems with it thus far are envisioning precise exchanges and how the skills interact, the rate of speed for concurrent physical and social conflicts, and suspension of disbelief when consequences overflow to influence contests that they don't seem to have any bearing on.
I hadn't considered the problem of supernatural toughness getting trumped by social prowess, but now forewarned, I can become forearmed, and for that, I thank you.
*Diaspora's model interests me some...it's more interesting than beating each other with verbal fists until someone cries uncle.
You people need to never stop feeding me with new games to plunder mechanics from. ;_;
-
Not all diseases make it hard to fight. One of the best martial artists I know has epilepsy. And many diseases have latency periods or otherwise are not always active. But if you get attacked while your disease consequence is not active, you still suffer from reduced chances of victory.
Incidentally, a character who has his arm chopped off in one fight can't have his other arm chopped off in the next because his physical extreme slot is full.
And a haircut is a lasting physical alteration to a character that can reasonably result from a physical attack and that can be important to some characters (those that care about their looks). It can't always just be stress. Check out tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloseCallHaircut) if you want examples.
My point is that the rules don't make all that much more sense than D&D's hitpoints anyway, so complaining that they're illogical is daft.
-
You people need to never stop feeding me with new games to plunder mechanics from. ;_;
Tell me about it. :)
I'd certainly like there to be a more concrete scale fractal between the Physical and the Social. The book tries to contextualize it, explaining that social conflicts can happen over longer periods of time.
I also don't like the "Unknown Smear Campaign Consequence" example (in which an unknown or unknowable social consequence is taking up a Consequence slot like an albatross around the player's neck, mysteriously making him less effective in a bar brawl because a socialite has made him a laughingstock across town and off camera), because it is always brought up in a vacuum, when in actual play, such Consequences would ideally come after a Conflict and be settled on by the player. If a GM just sticks that Consequence on a player, it isn't fair. But in a normal social conflict, the player's gonna know, and the character is ideally going to know something is up, too.
One suggestion I liked from an RPG.Net discussion about this very subject was that you leave the single Consequence track for the lower levels of Consequences, but then break out the highest slot (-6) into three separate -6 slots: one for each Stress track. The fiddling -2 or -4 Consequences will wash away soon enough, so there's no real reason to duplicate those for each Stress track. This would effectively give everyone another two -6 slots. I'm conflicted about whether it would be more appropriate to triplicate the Extreme (-8) slot instead, with its commensurate requirements of changing Aspects.
-
You people need to never stop feeding me with new games to plunder mechanics from. ;_;
Hehe, if you like FATE and Social Combat in games you really need to read Diaspora's version. To give it a superficial overview, it introduces zones to social combat and the ability to move opponents through zones. So if zone 1 is "Agreement" and zone 5 is "Utter Opposition" with / to some idea you have to convince by moving their position as much as by inflicting consequences. It gives Social Combat some tactical variety as well as allowing you to convince someone without inflicting consequences. End of digression. ;)
-
Not all diseases make it hard to fight. One of the best martial artists I know has epilepsy. And many diseases have latency periods or otherwise are not always active. But if you get attacked while your disease consequence is not active, you still suffer from reduced chances of victory.
It would make it harder to fight if he had a seizure right in the middle of it. But those long-term, life-long diseases would more likely be reflected in a character aspect than a consequence anyway.
And a haircut is a lasting physical alteration to a character that can reasonably result from a physical attack and that can be important to some characters (those that care about their looks). It can't always just be stress. Check out tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloseCallHaircut) if you want examples.
Believe me, I'm familiar with TV Tropes (addicted is probably more true, why do you think I used that term in the first place?). In fact, I helped put together its page for this very game :P
I guess that example falls to GM preference. Sure, a White Court pretty boy might be all kinds of put out that my character ruined his coif, but I'd feel cheated if my character made an attack successful enough to cause a consequence and then couldn't even tag it in any way. (Presuming here that the characters being at the sword-swinging stage means social combat is out of reach)
-
You can tag a haircut. Distress and anger make it hard to fight.
A disease could easily be a consequence, and it could easily be such that it would not meaningfully affect the character in a fight.
If you don't like diseases, think of internal injuries. Some types of brain damage are totally meaningless in a fight, but obviously a beating can damage someone's brain.
Point is, as soon as you start thinking outside the box you have to accept that consequences are a lot like Fate Points or stuff doesn't make sense.
-
A disease could easily be a consequence, and it could easily be such that it would not meaningfully affect the character in a fight.
Point is, as soon as you start thinking outside the box you have to accept that consequences are a lot like Fate Points or stuff doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure I buy that a disease would be a Consequence from anything but magic (which I think is more likely to be the result of thaumaturgy, and likely a maneuver at that) or an infection... which I would model as an environmental attack against the character's Endurance, with an invocation against ANOTHER existing Consequence reflecting the fact that an open wound in a swamp is a bad plan, sir.
In the end, the fact that it doesn't make sense is sort of the reason for this discussion. I'd also like to point out that I offered a potential solution to the logic problem here by suggesting alternative stress/consequence limits/models.
Also potentially worth a look is Mutants and Masterminds' toughness injury model, which is that every wound taken reduces the character's effective toughness against future injuries, and every time you take a hit, you check to see if your character can keep going. Eventually, penalties build up high enough that it's simply impossible to beat a roll, and down you go. Too much die rolling for my tastes, but it's another option.
-
It'll make sense to you as soon as you accept that consequences don't really exist inside the game world.
A character doesn't have a severe consequence, he has a BROKEN LEG or is PERCEIVED TO BE A PEDOPHILE.
And he might not even know that he has that consequence.
If I'm in a social conflict with someone who has no idea who I am and I don't yet know about the smear campaign against me and there's no audience, my reputation as a pedophile logically shouldn't matter. But mechanically, it does.
Because the consequence is a mechanical construct that exists in the parts of the game that are not part of the game-world.
They're like Fate Points in that way. Having spent all of your FP makes you weak and vulnerable, but FP don't correspond to anything within the game's universe.
-
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.
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.
I see you points and understand.
Responding to the bolded section.
But the system "allows" for it and I do not care for it.
It'll make sense to you as soon as you accept that consequences don't really exist inside the game world.
A character doesn't have a severe consequence, he has a BROKEN LEG or is PERCEIVED TO BE A PEDOPHILE.
And he might not even know that he has that consequence.
If I'm in a social conflict with someone who has no idea who I am and I don't yet know about the smear campaign against me and there's no audience, my reputation as a pedophile logically shouldn't matter. But mechanically, it does.
Because the consequence is a mechanical construct that exists in the parts of the game that are not part of the game-world.
They're like Fate Points in that way. Having spent all of your FP makes you weak and vulnerable, but FP don't correspond to anything within the game's universe.
No it really doesn't make sense. I do realize FP's and consequences don't really exist in game..nor do concessions/declarations etc. Those are tools for the narrative yes?
If I don't know I'm "percieved to be X" why should it effect me or be taggable? Why does it make it harder for me at all? Why can I not fight on through this perception of myself? Does being embarassed or feeling bad for someone take away my will to fight on or to live? I know that's just the system. I accept it if I'm in a game where such rules apply. I'm just saying I don't care for it.
What we have here is vast chasm in different play styles. My group will happily curb/modify/jury-rig/house-rule/etc. a system until it fits the group. If we need to hammer to many changes in, we simply don't play it. I think the system overall is fine, I enjoy games with more breakdowns in this group's playstyle. I just think this part breaks down pretty hard for me.
-
It isn't taggable unless it being tagged makes sense and it doesn't make it harder for you to fight if it isn't taggable. It just reduces the semi-existent plot shield that your character has.
Doesn't everyone house-rule where necessary?
There are plenty of valid playstyle objections to social combat rules, but I don't think this is one.
-
...
If I don't know I'm "percieved to be X" why should it effect me or be taggable? Why does it make it harder for me at all? Why can I not fight on through this perception of myself? Does being embarassed or feeling bad for someone take away my will to fight on or to live? I know that's just the system. I accept it if I'm in a game where such rules apply. I'm just saying I don't care for it.
...
Actually, yes, this is a specific instance where it would. One of the largest social stigmas in recent decades is "Perceived as a Pedophile". There doesn't even need to be any evidence to that effect to condemn someone utterly in every possible social situation in a community. People up and move their entire life, states or even countries away, to escape that black mark-- even if they are in the right. And you don't have to even know if you've been declared as such right away. People will eye you strangely, not give you the time of day, and tell you to get out of their store with no explanation.
And why shouldn't people? They believe they're protecting their children. They may be wrong, but from their point of view, "Better safe than sorry, right?" So it's very real.
The other side of this coin is: does it make for a good game?
My answer sides with you: no. If you, as a player, don't know there is such a consequence or how to clear it, it can breed frustration. The separation point is whether you, as a player, know how/why things are happening. If the character doesn't know, it's narrative depth. If the player doesn't know, its a shitty GM. The system doesn't come into it.
-
I don't think it's possible for a player to not know about a consequence that his character has. My example was meant to refer to a character who didn't know, not a player.
-
Lots of valid points in this thread, and any GM should read through the various posts, and treat them as a buffet. Taking usable notions and ideas his players would enjoy and rolling them into his GM style so that the wanted end result can occur. The players having fun.
Personally. Social combat is needed in the campaign I run. The players gleam information from contacts, thugs, and local yocals via social combat. They like roleplaying it out with the myriad of dice rolls instead of a single *make a contact roll*.
One situation comes to mind where a player approached a group of "Party Boys" in an attempt to gleam information about a drug dealer in the area. Through the course of the Social Conflict, he won them over, gained a positive position in their eyes, and earned a new contact in the party world. Despite this, however, the Party Boys ended up calling his social bluff, and forced the Player to concede in the end. The player conceded that they would meet with the drug dealer, and the player would buy drugs for the group. The player even has an aspect that played beautifully into the drama. "I did what?"
IE: Real World example of Peer pressure forcing someone to do what they wouldn't normally do, or A Person befriending others by doing something stupid to win trust.
As the GM, I used the outcome to move the plot, and was sure to include these new friends in future plot as hooks. Without the Social Conflict none of that story and connection would be possible.
What am I trying to say, Do what makes it fun for your players. :)
-
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've never considered consequences as an abstract measure of the characters over-all well being. Is there a page reference for that? For me stress boxes are a mechanical measure of how badly you can lose a conflict before it leaves a mark (i.e. an aspect). The Consequences you take are, as DevonApple said above, narrative armor, and also a mechanic for having the fallout from conflicts enter the fiction through tagging and compels. Translating the stress and consequences taken into fiction is the job of narration and roleplay. But the fact that a hit takes someone out because they have two social consequences doesn't mean those consequences necessarily track to the fiction directly (like depression made you weak, so the punch hurt more). Maybe they got lucky with that punch and hit a soft spot. We don't always physically react the same way to the same stimuli? I don't see why characters would.
An interesting effect of that is that if the player takes supernatural toughness, they should be expecting a lot of social problems. The game is designed so that it's really hard to escape a life of difficulties and tension. Amp up your physical resistance? Cue emotional drama.
-
They're like Fate Points in that way. Having spent all of your FP makes you weak and vulnerable, but FP don't correspond to anything within the game's universe.
This.
And that brings up a good question. Why? Why consciously design a system where social and physical consequences overlap? Where a reputation can be used to take you out in a physical fight? It's by design, not an accident, after all.
Here's my thinking on that: The game makes an assumption that as long as its setup the world and characters correctly, with appropriate aspects to create cool color and tense complications, then the game functions best when characters are invoking those aspects and can't just dismiss a worthy compel in an offhand manner. Conflicts are a powerful dial in the GMs hand to pace the game. You want an interesting colorful fight with the supernaturally tough dude? Soften him up with a dramatic fight with his girlfriend first. It's not an encounter based game where the GM is throwing out challenges to see if the PCs are clever enough to use their resources and overcome the difficulties. The fact that social and physical consequences overlap is a big clue that the game doesn't view conflicts the way you might in DnD. You wouldn't port a rule into DnD where an argument reduced a PC's hit points because the game is about meeting challenges until your hp runs out. But fate is about going hard for what you want while having things you put on your charactersheet complicate your life in interesting ways. In this regard, Consequences are a narrative pacing mechanic.
-
No Clue makes valid points. I will say however that, every game I play, regardless of system is a very heavy roleplaying experience. The fact that a superhero game is mostly about beating bad guys; doesn't preclude roleplaying heavily if I want. Nor does D & D. If I just wanna bash monsters I'll play Hero Quest or a video game.
By that same token, just because Old World of Darkness is based on the struggle of the monster within and the downward spiral of the PC's doesn't mean I can't get in fights and wreck stuff when I want.
Bubba Amon Hotep hit the nail on the head. Make your game fit your players and your running style.
In the end: a game with a very strict consequence system works great if everyone is on the same page about the narrative nature of how the particular game is being played. However, many players will see it more as a fashion in which to make the game easier or harder on characters depending upon the circumstances. For instance the opposite simplistic view of consequences and stress is this: how much damage someone can take before i win or lose. Hence the way Victor Sell's heart 'sploder spell works. Seeing that essentially says people can take roughly 26 damage before they lose. having all the types of stress/damage lead up to the same result makes it easier to lose/win depending upon who is taking the stress and who is dealing it.
The system of consequences is very frustrating to deal with when in a mixed group, people who see both sides of the conversation we are having. The group must adapt to such things or the game starts to fail everyone. Since I play with such a group i have to accept both interpretations and realize the flaws of both ways of thinking. I see value in both arguements, but I know mechanically why it seems flawed and can't really refute it.
That said, I'm not so much arguing the fact that it is bad or wrong, but that it has inherent flaws with certain groups and don't care for being told:
There are plenty of valid playstyle objections to social combat rules, but I don't think this is one.
My first instinct is to say that you apperently haven't played with a group truly willing to abuse your NPC's consequences. it is quite hard to make a challenge for a group willin to do so. narrative game or not, if the players never feel challenged you might as well put the dice aside and just sit around talk about how the story should go... the conflicts are (just like many keep saying) part of the exciting unknowable part of the game.
From personal experience, if even the "BIG BAD" is bombarded with social, mental, and physical stress. He/she goes down fast...bar none. (Unless the "BIG BAD" is rediculously and needlessly awesome at all forms of defense and such...also hard to accept as a player and hard to justify as a GM)
I simply can't see continuing this debate from my standpoint. I honestly see all the other points involved. I'm sure the system works much of the time. I just can't see why many people can't see the breakdown in game/system where I found it.
-
Nothing in my post was meant to imply that you can't roleplay in any other games or even that the way DFRPG does it is better, just that the designs are using encounters and ablative mechanics towards different goals.
-
It's not an encounter based game where the GM is throwing out challenges to see if the PCs are clever enough to use their resources and overcome the difficulties.
I guess I've been playing it all wrong, then.
@Silverblaze: But how do your players inflict social stress without your consent? What stops the BBEG from just stabbing them as soon as they open their mouths?
Most of the big physical challenges I've thrown at the PCs in my PbP game could not have been softened up socially first.
-
So, the BBEG is a decently qualified villain in most cases, right Silverblaze? Why doesn't he see his shortcomings and keep some dudes around that can counter those tactics?
For example, Marcone is an interesting villain (even though he works with Dresden a lot, he is a villain). He is incredibly skilled at social conflicts. He's decent at physical encounters because of his training and vast weapon stocks, but he's not super-tough by any means. He's intelligent, but not focused in many of those conflict areas. So, what does he do? He hires Hendricks as muscle, in case conflict kicks off. He hires Gard as intello-magical protection. And those two things include pre-emptive defenses, too. Hendricks and his boys sweep an area to ensure there's no traps set, Gard checks for wards or magical land mines. They stay with him when he's in danger. Attempt to use magic on Marcone? Gard steps in and deals with that challenge. Try to punch Marcone in the face? Hendricks will have a talk with you about that-- with his meaty fist. But, you try and talk Marcone down? He's right there, smiling and talking you down with his "Daddy Voice."
Try spicing up your encounters like this. If you put the group of players against a singular enemy, (or a singularly built enemy) the players will win handedly. That's true in ANY GAME EVER*.
*(Haven't you ever wondered why Dragons have always sucked in D&D? That's why. People always put a single enemy against a group of players.)
-
So, the BBEG is a decently qualified villain in most cases, right Silverblaze? Why doesn't he see his shortcomings and keep some dudes around that can counter those tactics?
For example, Marcone is an interesting villain (even though he works with Dresden a lot, he is a villain). He is incredibly skilled at social conflicts. He's decent at physical encounters because of his training and vast weapon stocks, but he's not super-tough by any means. He's intelligent, but not focused in many of those conflict areas. So, what does he do? He hires Hendricks as muscle, in case conflict kicks off. He hires Gard as intello-magical protection. And those two things include pre-emptive defenses, too. Hendricks and his boys sweep an area to ensure there's no traps set, Gard checks for wards or magical land mines. They stay with him when he's in danger. Attempt to use magic on Marcone? Gard steps in and deals with that challenge. Try to punch Marcone in the face? Hendricks will have a talk with you about that-- with his meaty fist. But, you try and talk Marcone down? He's right there, smiling and talking you down with his "Daddy Voice."
Try spicing up your encounters like this. If you put the group of players against a singular enemy, (or a singularly built enemy) the players will win handedly. That's true in ANY GAME EVER*.
*(Haven't you ever wondered why Dragons have always sucked in D&D? That's why. People always put a single enemy against a group of players.)
I stand by my opinion that if everyone in that encounter still targets one foe with all of that in the same scene the BBEG is in trouble. Nothing stops them from ignoring Gard and Hendricks for a round while they total Marcone like a Porsche to a tree.
I don't like one singular foe to be good at everything unless it is the culimnation of the "campaign".
Dragons in AD&D were woefully underpowered. Likely are in most D&D systems. I agree in most systems one foe cannot defeat (or come close) a group of PC's.
End of the day, I've seen other systems handle social interactions better IMO. I think it could be handled better. It seems to work by book for most tables however. I can find some value in it. I just don't care for that aspect of the system.
However, I'm clearly in the minority. I've argued this view in other threads, my opinion is known and I grow weary of this.
-
I will agree that there are systems that handle social interactions better. I just don't have a problem with the way consequences work.