Question on transitioning from social into physical conflict

[Papa Gruff]

In our last session a situation came up in which I wasn't sure how to handle it. I decided to just go with what the players wanted but would like to have options if a similar situation presents its self in the future. The scene was as follows:

The group consisting of Simon the wizard, Erik the scion and William the vampire slayer. They had fought their way into the den of a pretty influential RCV, laying havoc on his property on the way in. The find them selfs outnumbered 3:1 by the retainers of said Vampire. Knowing of his strong position the Vamp starts a social conflict with the goal of intimidating the PC into leaving without rescuing the guy kidnapped by the RCV. The players are pretty much outclassed in the social conflict and quickly take social stress by the intimidation attacks. Shortly before consequences are taken, the scion decides that there has been enough talk, auto compelling one of his Aspects and making the social into a physical conflict.

Now comes the problem I am unsure of. By changing the social conflict into a physical, the player avoided consequences to him and his allies. The NPC gets cheated out of his victory in the social conflict. Should such a situation be handled as a concession since they pretty much gave up in the social conflict? What would be appropriate here? I'm at a loss of ideas and can't find anything in the rules to help me. Any ideas guys?

[luminos]

If a consequence would have happened down the line, then I'd treat changing to physical conflict as a concession (with the downside being that you have to fight, so it might not have any lasting downside to doing this if the fight goes well.  I wouldn't give the player a fate point for this though).  If the dice had already been rolled, and the consequence was there, and he decided to make it a physical conflict in that moment, the consequence still gets applied.

[JosephKell]

I would also potentially let their failure to talk things out if any of the vampires survived.  Heck, if they guy they are there to rescue witnesses what happened, maybe rumor will still get out.

If I am correct, then on a basic level, the Vamp Boss basically spoke them into a corner (and gave them the option to just walk away) and their response was "La la la la la la la!  I can't hear you!  La la la la la la la!  *kick him/her/it in the fleshmask*"

But that is fine.

Social conflict is opt in.  And it requires acceptance of social conventions (specifically "Not resorting to violence").  The only reason to talk when you have the upper hand is to avoid the risk of personal injury (sure the vampires might win, but will the vampire boss be alive still?).

If the players still won the fight, it demonstrates that they probably didn't have to stop and chat.

Back to my original point.  If any vampires survived, they would have an incentive to trash talk the trio.  Especially if they somehow violated the accords.  Reputation for keeping your word is a currency, and these guys just spent some of it.

[GoldenH]

Why are they seperate? If the vampire had filled up his social stress track, why not just launch a social attack in the middle of combat and Take Him Out - possibly describing him being backed into a corner and trapped!! to be fed on, later.

[Sabrel]

Well technically, being taken out in one branch does not automatically keep one from competing in the other two, as long as at it is logically plausible (being unconscious or dead isn't particularly conducive to social discourse, but being socially humiliated rarely prevents one from throwing a punch).

Since Physical conflicts tend to have the highest immediate stakes (pretty hard to be talked to death, though some of my high school teachers tried really hard), I wouldn't consider the Social conflict "ended" so much as "deferred" while the more immediately dangerous Physical conflict is resolved. Provided participants on both sides survive the fight (via concessions, or whatnot), the Social conflict could resume. Perhaps the defeated Red leader still has some intimidating "I'll get you next time, Gadget" commentary to throw out as he is being hauled off, threats of vengeance against loved ones, and such.

If you're feeling particularly ambitious, the Social conflict could even continue during the Physical conflict, with taunts and mind games and the like.

Fate rules are designed to be heavier on the narrative than the crunchy, so the best answer is probably to find whatever version works best for your group and makes for a fun scene.

[GoldenH]

While obviously social combat can't easily kill someone, it's possible to get an overwhelming advantage on someone by filling up their consequences or dictating a Taken Out result that gives you a great strategic advantage. You could imagine all those Super Spy movies where they give up when there is someone with a gun to their back, instead of busting out the kung fu, as being a social Taken Out result that if he didn't accept, he would be killed. You can also say "Okay, you have to leave now or you die when we shoot you". Okay, sure, you get to describe being taken out, and you might throw a punch or something, but that's it, you certainly can't start a new combat (unless the guy who took you out didn't say you couldn't)

[Sabrel]

An absolute prohibition like that really doesn't suit narrative flow very well. By that logic, anyone who is poorly skilled at Physical conflict can nearly infinitely avoid it by making it a Social fight first, and then dictating a Taken Out result that prevents the more physically skilled opponent from ever being able to exercise their strengths. While it is true that fast wits and talk can get you out of a fight often, there are simply times where someone is going to decide your lip is too much and hit you.

There is a prime example of that in Storm Front,

(click to show/hide)

when Harry is first meeting with Bianca. It starts Social, goes Physical, and then slips back to Social.

Physical conflicts carry a lot of immediate risk, as well as the potential of long-lasting baggage (like the issues arising from starting a fight in a public place, or taking a swing at a member of an Accord signatory group without valid reason under the Accords), so sensible characters won't often be willing to take a conflict to the Physical just to avoid losing a Social fight, but the option is almost always there.

[toturi]

Now comes the problem I am unsure of. By changing the social conflict into a physical, the player avoided consequences to him and his allies. The NPC gets cheated out of his victory in the social conflict. Should such a situation be handled as a concession since they pretty much gave up in the social conflict? What would be appropriate here? I'm at a loss of ideas and can't find anything in the rules to help me. Any ideas guys?

I would let it happen. The NPC should have stopped short of pushing the PCs to autocompel. If the NPC didn't know that the PCs could autocompel a social conflict into a physical one, then now he knows. He now knows that if he pushes the PCs too far, they will fight and talking doesn't work on them.

The NPC has a game mechanic to use against the PCs but the PCs also have a counter to the NPC's tactic. The way I see it, even with a 3-1 advantage if the PCs could have won the Physical conflict (and judging from the aftermath, it seem that they did win), the odds for them in the Social conflict would have been on their side, ie they would have won the Social conflict and the NPC should have been the ones talking the consequence.

[GoldenH]

An absolute prohibition like that really doesn't suit narrative flow very well. By that logic, anyone who is poorly skilled at Physical conflict can nearly infinitely avoid it by making it a Social fight first, and then dictating a Taken Out result that prevents the more physically skilled opponent from ever being able to exercise their strengths. While it is true that fast wits and talk can get you out of a fight often, there are simply times where someone is going to decide your lip is too much and hit you.

Why should it be the other way? Just because you're good at Physical, if someone starts a social conflict, you can just punch them in the face and describe a Taken Out result where they don't have to talk to them?

Nah, just represent it as a weakness, as it really is; if someone has a glass jaw, then you can punch them and get them taken out. If someone has a problem about his mother, than bring it up during a fight and get him to do something stupid so you can deal with it. If you don't want the weakness, buy up your stress track and mental defenses.

[TheMouse]

Why are they seperate? If the vampire had filled up his social stress track, why not just launch a social attack in the middle of combat and Take Him Out - possibly describing him being backed into a corner and trapped!! to be fed on, later.

Pretty much this.

I don't recall seeing anything that says that social and physical contexts cannot exist in the same conflict. I mean, taunting someone in a fight is basically trying to inflict social stress on someone in the hopes of gaining an advantage in the form of a compel against a Consequence at some point. Why not continue to intimidate?

[Papa Gruff]

Pretty much this.

I don't recall seeing anything that says that social and physical contexts cannot exist in the same conflict. I mean, taunting someone in a fight is basically trying to inflict social stress on someone in the hopes of gaining an advantage in the form of a compel against a Consequence at some point. Why not continue to intimidate?

Ok. I can get behind this. Now how would you handle it? Would you maintain the social exchange and do a separate physical exchange on the side with different initiative and all? Or would you encase the social in the physical, allowing social attacks as actions or even supplemental actions in the physical conflict? Both seem valid and have their own appeal in my opinion...

[Tsunami]

Intertwining different forms of conflict would be a hopeless tangle in my opinion.

For me, taunting in combat is more like a maneuver than a social conflict.

Using Intimidation to place an aspect like "flustered" or "enraged" or whatever on the target.
Resisted with rapport. Maybe supplemented by weapons or fists to represent combat discipline...

that's how i see it.

[toturi]

Why should it be the other way? Just because you're good at Physical, if someone starts a social conflict, you can just punch them in the face and describe a Taken Out result where they don't have to talk to them?

Nah, just represent it as a weakness, as it really is; if someone has a glass jaw, then you can punch them and get them taken out. If someone has a problem about his mother, than bring it up during a fight and get him to do something stupid so you can deal with it. If you don't want the weakness, buy up your stress track and mental defenses.

Why should it not? If someone insult your mother, can you not punch him as a reply? It might not be the smartest thing in the world to do so, but those consequences may be secondary to the conflict. For example, if you start a social conflict(insulting his family for example) and the other party starts throwing punches, he might be arrested, but you might still get clocked.

Unless you are not going for realism but game balance instead, I do not see how if someone starts a social conflict, you cannot punch him to shut him up. In fact, I see it as a reasonable counter to whatever you have said to the person; if you do not want to get punched in the face, don't start a social conflict.

[Papa Gruff]

Intertwining different forms of conflict would be a hopeless tangle in my opinion.

For me, taunting in combat is more like a maneuver than a social conflict.

Using Intimidation to place an aspect like "flustered" or "enraged" or whatever on the target.
Resisted with rapport. Maybe supplemented by weapons or fists to represent combat discipline...

that's how i see it.

I disagree. It is not at all a problem to allow social attack actions during a physical exchange. Perhaps not as a supplemental because that is counter indicated by the "only one attack per exchange" rule. It's not even over complicated. It's just trying to inflict Stress on a different Track. Try to see it from the players point of view who has a socially strong PC. How would you feel if the GM decides to do the same thing to you and just breaking your chance to inflict social consequences by changing the conflict into a physical in witch you are possibly the under dog.

Leaving a social exchange by changing it into a physical should have some repercussions. If you don't allow the social to continue into the physical, then the concession rules should apply. At the very least your reputation should be harmed and "people" should be aware of you quick temper in the future. If nothing comes of a social conflict it ridicules the hole mechanic in my opinion.   

[Papa Gruff]

Why should it not? If someone insult your mother, can you not punch him as a reply? It might not be the smartest thing in the world to do so, but those consequences may be secondary to the conflict. For example, if you start a social conflict(insulting his family for example) and the other party starts throwing punches, he might be arrested, but you might still get clocked.

Unless you are not going for realism but game balance instead, I do not see how if someone starts a social conflict, you cannot punch him to shut him up. In fact, I see it as a reasonable counter to whatever you have said to the person; if you do not want to get punched in the face, don't start a social conflict.

This is only true if the intend of the social attacker is to provoke you into attacking him physical. That might not always be the case.

In the example the RCV tried to convince the players, that it would be a good idea if they just left and that he wouldn't kill them for destroying huge parts of his estate. He wasn't after them attacking. His intention was the other way around. Before he was able to inflict social stress the players just changed the set of rules. The RCV totally had the strong point in the physical exchange as well, but the players managed to flee with the kidnapped person...

All in all it was a very cool and fun scene. I'm not at all after over complicating things. I just wanted to share a problem I see that is not really covered by the rules and might offer a loophole that allows to diminish the awesomeness that social exchanges can be.