Problems With Social Conflicts

[luminos]

Are you asking for some example social conflicts?

[Deadmanwalking]

So the best way for someone without really good social skills is to avoid social conflicts? Because their opponents can always Take them Out and have no physical conflict as one of their objectives?

Well, that's not always doable...depending on the social skills  being used and the situation as a whole. I mean, taking someone out with vicious sniping at a fancy mundane party isn't really very likely to prevent physical conflict just because it would never occur to the socialites doing the sniping that physical conflict might occur. Nor does being Taken Out by Deceit usually prevent physical conflict in most situations, since that just doesn't usually make sense.

If the GM is making "no physical conflict" a part of being Taken Out in all cases, well, they're not doing it right.

Also bear in mind the ability to Conceed, giving the opponent more-or-less what they want...but on your terms, which might easily not even mention physical conflict.

[Michael,HandofGod]

I agree that it would often make sense for a character who has been bested socially to turn the conflict into a physical one.  However, while that makes sense, at the same time it arguably robs the meaning of the victory of the social conflict in the first place.  One of my players, who designed his character to be good at social things rather than physical, asked me "If winning a social conflict can just turn into a fistfight, then what is the point of my character?"  I'm still trying to answer that question.

[luminos]

When you go into a social conflict, what is the purpose?  If the characters involved in the conflict don't have an objective, it shouldn't happen in the first place.  If there is an objective, then winning that social conflict should involve that character accomplishing his objective.  If turning it into a fistfight negates that objective, then it shouldn't be turned into a fistfight.  DO NOT let an intimidated character start a fight.  DO NOT let a tricked character start a fight based on the fact that he knows the other guy is tricking him, because according to the conflict, he doesn't know that.

[ryanroyce]

To take a page from Dogs in the Vineyard, Step One of a conflict is to establish what's at stake.  The stakes should be agreed upon by the GM and the players before initiative is rolled, so to speak, informed by the circumstances that surround the conflict and the personalities of the participants.  Sometimes, one side has the other at a disadvantage and can get away with seeking higher stakes, but that's just another factor to consider when negotiating.  For example, if a pair of insane vampires have captured a wounded PC, they have the advantage and can seek high stakes.  However, if the PC knows that help will be on the way very soon and he merely needs to stall, then the PC's player can refuse to accept those high stakes and negotiate something more acceptable. Role-playing is a significant factor at this stage.

Once the Stakes are agreed upon, then the die-rolling portion of the conflict should take place.  If one side Concedes or gets Taken Out, then the other side wins those Stakes.  If, for any reason, one side decides mid-scene that they want to fight for a different set of Stakes, then another conflict would need to be initiated, possibly with a cleared social stress track.

It is also important to remember that mere force of personality (as represented by a character's social skills) sometimes just isn't enough to win certain stakes.  Without genuine bargaining chips, some stakes will simply be out-of-reach, no matter how superb their Intimidation or Rapport skills are.  As with the above example, if the player decided that nothing short of bloody violence would convince their PC to give up their quest to rescue a loved one (i.e., "I'll save her or die trying") and the GM doesn't have any additional bargaining chips to put on the table, then simple social conflict cannot be used to win that stake.

[CableRouter]

One of my players, who designed his character to be good at social things rather than physical, asked me "If winning a social conflict can just turn into a fistfight, then what is the point of my character?"  I'm still trying to answer that question.

When you don't get what you want from someone in real life, you just attack them physically?  If not, how hard is it to figure out why you don't?  Those exact same reasons apply to the PCs.

[toturi]

I agree that it would often make sense for a character who has been bested socially to turn the conflict into a physical one.  However, while that makes sense, at the same time it arguably robs the meaning of the victory of the social conflict in the first place.  One of my players, who designed his character to be good at social things rather than physical, asked me "If winning a social conflict can just turn into a fistfight, then what is the point of my character?"  I'm still trying to answer that question.

Turn his question around: If winning a social conflict means a physical character is neutralised, what is the point of being good at physical combat skills?

[toturi]

When you go into a social conflict, what is the purpose?  If the characters involved in the conflict don't have an objective, it shouldn't happen in the first place.  If there is an objective, then winning that social conflict should involve that character accomplishing his objective.  If turning it into a fistfight negates that objective, then it shouldn't be turned into a fistfight.  DO NOT let an intimidated character start a fight.  DO NOT let a tricked character start a fight based on the fact that he knows the other guy is tricking him, because according to the conflict, he doesn't know that.

Thus we get down to who is quicker on the draw. Character A is a social character, therefore it is in his favor if there is a social conflict. Character B is a physical character, it is in his favor to make the conflict physical.

So it gets down to who gets to decide which type of conflict it is. Remember pure mundane social skills aren't magic or mind control. An intimidated person can still behave irrationally and punch the other guy out of fear. A tricked person may just attack anyway out of sheer viciousness or "you might not be Bob the Witness, but I will kill you anyway just to be safe."

[Deadmanwalking]

"If winning a social conflict can just turn into a fistfight, then what is the point of my character?" 

You probably shouldn't be initiating Social conflicts with people who have the attitude that a failed Social Conflict means they punch you. Arguing with people who become physically violent whenever they are contradicted or convinced of anything (even politely) isn't smart in real life...nor in the game.

On the bright side, people like that are also exceedingly uncommon. Even among homicidal supernaturals, those who violate their given word or traditions of hospitality (both of which are perfectly reasonable things to get out of social conflict) are rapidly destroyed by their fellows as dangerous lunatics. In mortal society, they tend to get arrested. The situation really just shouldn't come up that much.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

In most cases social conflict is the safest option.  As an analagous example, in an Ars Magica game the other night the Council of Antwerp sought to have us arrested to prevent us from sailing to nearby pirate infested islands as they believed we could only be doing so to join the pirates.  We had men at arms with us (and mages) but the option we chose was to address the problem using social conflict - indeed I was thinking about how to replicate this in Fate with DFRPG at the time.   Our objective was to be able to sail and not be arrested; I assume the Council's objective was to be content that we were not a threat.  If we'd failed I suspect we'd have been arrested and we would have not sought to change it to a physical confrontation as fighting the City Watch would not have been a good medium or long term idea (similar to involving the mortal world in supernatural affairs).

In Fate terms we would have been using Rapport (and possibly Intimidation at one point) and invoking aspects such as Sponsored by an Archbishop, Merchant contacts, probably compelling an Aspect on the Council of Needing to Attract Trade.   In the event we clearly inflicted a minor consequence and they conceded as it wasn't really critical to them.  Had it gone the other way we'd have tried to concede to avoid jail e.g. agreeing to leave the city by land.

Earlier on the Watch had arrived at our accommodation to take us to the Council.  The rhetoric was fairly tough and one of our group pushed a Watchman into a personal duel  - by winning the duel we had a bit of helping Intimidation to persuade the Watch that the trip to the Council would be an escorted walk rather than an arrest.  I'm not sure whether I'd have made this a social conflict or not in Fate/DFRPG but it used physical combat to assist the social conflict - an all out physical response would have been a disaster from our perspective.

Regards

Edward

[luminos]

Thus we get down to who is quicker on the draw. Character A is a social character, therefore it is in his favor if there is a social conflict. Character B is a physical character, it is in his favor to make the conflict physical.

So it gets down to who gets to decide which type of conflict it is. Remember pure mundane social skills aren't magic or mind control. An intimidated person can still behave irrationally and punch the other guy out of fear. A tricked person may just attack anyway out of sheer viciousness or "you might not be Bob the Witness, but I will kill you anyway just to be safe."

Toturi, once the stakes of a conflict have been determined (which as another poster said, needs to happen at the beginning of the conflict) the person/group that wins the conflict wins the stakes.  If you let a character taken out by intimidation punch the intimidator out, you are just trying to cheese the rules, and in a way that's very clearly against the way they are written.  The winner of the conflict gets to decide how you are taken out (within reason), not you.  This isn't D&D where you can have a team of psychopathic good guys running around punching everyone you disagree with.

[ryanroyce]

Thus we get down to who is quicker on the draw. Character A is a social character, therefore it is in his favor if there is a social conflict. Character B is a physical character, it is in his favor to make the conflict physical.

So it gets down to who gets to decide which type of conflict it is. Remember pure mundane social skills aren't magic or mind control. An intimidated person can still behave irrationally and punch the other guy out of fear. A tricked person may just attack anyway out of sheer viciousness or "you might not be Bob the Witness, but I will kill you anyway just to be safe."

Um... unless I've missed a rule somewhere, there isn't a strict line between the different types of conflict.  Sure, your social guy may try to intimidate my combat guy on his initiative, but there's nothing stopping my combat guy from cutting you up on his turn in the exchange.  The stakes would be "talk me out of hurting you VS me hurting you anyway", more or less.  If your guy succeeds well enough to Take Him Out on the first hit, then you win the stakes and talk me out of it somehow.  If you don't, then things get bloody.

Yes, it may seem unfair that physical combat can so easily overshadow social conflict but, well, that's just how reality works.  In the words of Al Capone, "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

[Remy Sinclair]

Ran my first game of the DFRPG tonight.  All in all, it went fairly well--the story went nicely, people figured out the fudge dice system decently.  Combat was a bit strange to them, mostly the stress system, but I think the players will get used to it.  The sticking point was Social Conflict.

One of my players found herself without Presence, Report, Intimidation, or Empathy.  Perhaps I should have made it more clear that these skills would have been important during character creation.  Regardless, we got to a social conflict--three guys who suspected their friend had gotten into some dark magic were being questioned by this player and one other (one with a few social skills) and didn't want to tell them.  This player was left with the sense that she literally could not do anything in this conflict.

Now, I realize that the idea of social skills is that they represent the social capabilities of the character, which are different from those of the player.  However, it still seems strange to them (and me, at times) that their character needs a  skill to use simple logic to convince people of things.  Perhaps I was misreading the situation and it did not actually need to become a conflict.

In all, I think the situation reflects a general mistrust of any roleplaying game attempting to apply mechanics to the roleplaying aspect itself.  While it might be considerably easier to remove the rules for social conflicts, I think the game would lose something for it--and perhaps more importantly, doing so would largely invalidate the character that one of my players created, a socially oriented face.  I am considering allowing my players to rearrange some skills, now that they have seen how the game actually works.  Does anyone else have more advice on how to make them warm up towards the social conflict system?

This happens a lot when you have new players introduced to a new system. With the Dresden Game also a new system for you as the Game Master to make sure people understand the rules that includes yourself. Remember character creation is new not to just you but the players as well for this game regardless of the experience of the players.

For both of my players, we sat down worked together building characters. I had everyone follow the rules with the Aspects before we put anything on the character sheet. One player has nearly a decade experience in Table Top and the other is a year old in gaming experience. I walked them through made sure they placed their skills and powers correctly for their concepts so they understood what they had. I do this whenever someone builds a character for my game regardless of experience in gaming when new to the system. Things work differently from D20 to Storyteller to the Fudge System to CORE.

As for social conflicts. I spent most of my years Storytelling WoD games mostly Camarilla Table Top Vampire games. You believe that social skills should be roleplayed out and I agree with you, but lets say the said player is not good at playing a social character but is playing one that is suppose to be very good at this? The player cannot pull the social aspect off so that is why you have the rolling for back up.

Another example if players end up in a social conflict with each other. Sometimes letting the dice roll helps because sometimes Player A might not play with Player B seducing him, because Player B is just being difficult.

Another example is if your player tries to outwit a powerful being or hard to deal with character they need to pull off those skills.

One of the Tricks I do is look at Player A's character sheet to see if they have any bonuses to their social skills, aspects and stunts that would help or hurt them them in that situation. Even though it is roleplayed that is something to keep in mind. So yes they should be on the character sheet. Even if you are not rolling them.

Player B might be a stone cold unpersonable character that makes people uneasy, but Player A is the social bunny. Player B would not have the Rapport or Deceit needed to survive a word battle but Player A does because that is their speciality while Player B's specialty is that he is great to have at your back in a fight.

By not having those skills in the game and on someone's sheet it takes out a character nitch in the game and could if you have some players argue why cannot my Player B combat cold monster be able to fight a word battle, I the player can do it! And there are no skills that say I cannot do otherwise.

Honestly FUDGE says don't roll unless you have to but that is up to you as the Game Master. Remember the Character Sheet is not just for the skills but what boundries players can do and nothing shows it more than this system.