Taking Social Consequences as Backlash?

[ryanroyce]

Most characters, either PC or NPC, have a weakness of some sort; either physical, mental or social. If a character is great in physical conflict but awful as social conflict, can it really be a weakness if you rule that any social loss immediately becomes a physical conflict?

I mean sure, for PC's that can be a bad thing, but if your group has reached the final act in their campaign and the boss is (literally) a monster in combat then can he never be defeated in a social conflict at all? Do social conflict-based characters have to sit on the bench while the guy with the katana and trenchcoat does all the work?

Sure, I guess you could say it's the GM's fault for not creating a bad guy that can be defeated socially, but few NPC's will stop misbehaving after a stern talking to.

 As I've mentioned before, the trick is in making physical conflict circumstantially impossible, highly undesirable, or wholly inappropriate.  This is why oaths of safe passage and the like are so important; they take violence off the table.  For example, when Harry and Susan were at the gala in Death Masks, the security guards didn't want to make a scene in front of Chicago's upper crust.  Harry and Susan couldn't afford to make a scene, either.  Thus, Conflict w/o a Violence option.

[Deadmanwalking]

What about the whole warrior psychologist thing where the opponent ends up flashing back to their traumatic childhood, gains a backstory over the course of five to ten minutes, then stops fighting (or occasionally joins the team).  Seen it a million times

Not in the Dresden Files you haven't. It's a feature of certain genres, and horribly unrealistic.


And yeah, what ryanroyce said. If you want to win vs. the bad guys by pure Social Conflict, you most certainly can...if, in one way or another, you make violence legitimately not an option. Oaths of safe passage are, indeed, a very good justification for this. And yes, that does make it more difficult to defeat ancient and deadly supernaturals with raw social skill. How is that a problem? Social skills are capable of a lot physical skills aren't, there's a flipside to that.



But mostly it's genre emulation. I mean, think about how cases usually end in the Dresden Files (in fire and blood), sure Harry himself is part of the reason for that, but c'mon, this game is emulating a very specific genre, and not one where everything can be solved by talking about it. Some things cannot be allowed to stand, and must end in violence on principle. If your PCs are anything approaching heroic, anyway.

[Kordeth]

Oh yes, I see you're correct.  Still, getting Taken Out socially or even Conceding does give a decisive advantage to the winner of the conflict.  If the Social attacker Takes Out his opponent, he gets to decide what the opponent does, and that may include not continuing to fight.

Well... no, it can't, really. See YS203:

Generally speaking, getting taken out applies only to the venue of the attack in question. For instance, getting taken out socially means a character has lost his cool and is totally flustered, but he may still be able to punch someone or run away. Getting taken out physically might mean the character is physically incapacitated, but he may still interact socially in some way (though unconsciousness and death do tend to put a small crimp in such things).

So yeah, if you take someone out in a social conflict you can define that as "he flees the scene," but nothing prevents him from walking out the front door and then hurling a trash can through the window as the start of a physical conflict.

[JosephKell]

But Conceding means that you lost the conflict and cannot continue.  Continuing to attack while in the same scene would contradict that.

This is why social conflicts with potentially hostile individuals/groups should occur when there are witnesses that won't jump in against you.  Witnesses keep people honest.

To do otherwise is asking to get shot in the face.

And flashing back to childhood trauma is more the outcome of a mental take out, not a social one.  Social take outs are about embarrassing someone.

[Ophidimancer]

Very true, though what about other methods of attack besides Intimidation.  I mean we also have Presence, Rapport, Deceit, and possibly even Empathy, though that's probably more useful for assessing Aspects to tag.

Also, what if the outcomes you're aiming for are things like YOU LIKE ME, GRUDGING RESPECT, YOU WANT TO HELP ME, I REMIND YOU OF YOU, or any other version of gaining reputation points?

Even with Intimidation, I can see an outcome of YOU THINK I'M PLUCKY AND FUNNY.  I remember some scenes form movies where the hero ends up drinking buddies with someone even after throwing a few punches.

[JosephKell]

Very true, though what about other methods of attack besides Intimidation.  I mean we also have Presence, Rapport, Deceit, and possibly even Empathy, though that's probably more useful for assessing Aspects to tag.

Also, what if the outcomes you're aiming for are things like YOU LIKE ME, GRUDGING RESPECT, YOU WANT TO HELP ME, I REMIND YOU OF YOU, or any other version of gaining reputation points?

Even with Intimidation, I can see an outcome of YOU THINK I'M PLUCKY AND FUNNY.  I remember some scenes form movies where the hero ends up drinking buddies with someone even after throwing a few punches.

It seems the topic has strayed from social stress as a backlash.

But I would say that those things are maneuvers to put those aspects on the target for the purposes of tagging those aspects for an effect (a compel to get what you want).

[lankyogre]

For those who have seen Firefly

(click to show/hide)

When Mal recruits Jayne onto his crew. Definitely Rapport and tagging a Greedy aspect to get him to turn against his former crew.

[Ophidimancer]

It seems the topic has strayed from social stress as a backlash.

Well you know, conversations are naturally evolving things.  Think I should start a new thread for this?

But I would say that those things are maneuvers to put those aspects on the target for the purposes of tagging those aspects for an effect (a compel to get what you want).

Well sure, that makes sense since a pretty sticky Aspect is one of the possible ways to represent being Taken Out.  It's just that it will probably stick around for awhile if it's a result of being Taken Out.

[Kordeth]

Very true, though what about other methods of attack besides Intimidation.  I mean we also have Presence, Rapport, Deceit, and possibly even Empathy, though that's probably more useful for assessing Aspects to tag.

Also, what if the outcomes you're aiming for are things like YOU LIKE ME, GRUDGING RESPECT, YOU WANT TO HELP ME, I REMIND YOU OF YOU, or any other version of gaining reputation points?

Can still end with something like "Hell, kid, I like you. Shame I gotta put you in the ground so you don't interfere with my business. We coulda made a helluva team, you and me."

Even with Intimidation, I can see an outcome of YOU THINK I'M PLUCKY AND FUNNY.  I remember some scenes form movies where the hero ends up drinking buddies with someone even after throwing a few punches.

I can see that outcome too. I can also think of plenty of people who are plucky and funny who I still want to punch in the face, and I'm not a ruthless mob boss/vampire/Sidhe Lord/other assorted types of bad guys that are often the antagonists in a Dresden Files story. Sure, they might decide they like you enough to not throw a punch, but it's ultimately their decision whether or not to escalate to physical violence. The most you could do to stop it would be to try to initiate a compel on that YOU LIKE ME aspect to prevent them from escalating, but they can buy that off.

[Ophidimancer]

I guess the question currently at hand is how much an attacker can dictate the actions of the target.  The way I read the rules, the attacker can dictate WHAT the target does, within a pretty wide margin of reason, but not HOW.

In general I would ask the winner what he wants the target to do, then ask the loser if there were any possible reason he would do that.  If there is any possibility of the loser of a conflict doing what the winner dictates, the loser does that.  Only in cases where it would be totally out of character for the loser to perform that action would I ask for the winner to moderate or change the requested declaration.  The loser still gets to choose the specific way the outcome happens, of course.

That's how I think being Taken Out works.  Essentially, if the winner of a conflict wants the loser to not escalate into a physical conflict, the loser complies unless that is an absolute impossibility in his mind.

[Kordeth]

I guess the question currently at hand is how much an attacker can dictate the actions of the target.  The way I read the rules, the attacker can dictate WHAT the target does, within a pretty wide margin of reason, but not HOW.

Correct, with the additional caveat that you cannot dictate restrictions on the target's actions outside the venue of the conflict. If you take someone out mentally, you can't say "and he can't try to persuade anyone else to listen to him" because persuading people to listen is a social action. If you take someone out socially you can't say "and he can't try to figure out the riddle," because figuring out the riddle is a social action. And if you take someone out socially, you can't say "and he doesn't punch me in the face," because that's a physical action.

In general I would ask the winner what he wants the target to do, then ask the loser if there were any possible reason he would do that.  If there is any possibility of the loser of a conflict doing what the winner dictates, the loser does that.  Only in cases where it would be totally out of character for the loser to perform that action would I ask for the winner to moderate or change the requested declaration.  The loser still gets to choose the specific way the outcome happens, of course.

That's how I think being Taken Out works.  Essentially, if the winner of a conflict wants the loser to not escalate into a physical conflict, the loser complies unless that is an absolute impossibility in his mind.

No, that's not how being taken out works at all. The winner dictates what happens, not what doesn't happen, and the loser dictates how. The winner can say "you embarrass yourself and leave the room," and the loser gets to decide how that happens. Maybe the loser runs out sobbing, or maybe he just stands up stiffly and stalks out. The loser is absolutely, totally, 100% free to then come back into the room later and open fire on you, or punch you in the face, or whatever. "You don't attack me" is not a valid "taken out" result.

[Ophidimancer]

Correct, with the additional caveat that you cannot dictate restrictions on the target's actions outside the venue of the conflict. If you take someone out mentally, you can't say "and he can't try to persuade anyone else to listen to him" because persuading people to listen is a social action. If you take someone out socially you can't say "and he can't try to figure out the riddle," because figuring out the riddle is a social action. And if you take someone out socially, you can't say "and he doesn't punch me in the face," because that's a physical action.

Ok, but Mental and Social outcomes can prevent physical actions without physically incapacitating the target.

No, that's not how being taken out works at all. The winner dictates what happens, not what doesn't happen, and the loser dictates how. The winner can say "you embarrass yourself and leave the room," and the loser gets to decide how that happens. Maybe the loser runs out sobbing, or maybe he just stands up stiffly and stalks out. The loser is absolutely, totally, 100% free to then come back into the room later and open fire on you, or punch you in the face, or whatever. "You don't attack me" is not a valid "taken out" result.

"You decide to help me instead of fighting me" is a legitimate social outcome, I think.

[luminos]

Remember when Harry beat the Merlin in a social conflict about whether or not Molly should be executed?  The Merlin still decided to execute Molly anyways.  The point is, beating someone socially doesn't change their mind for them, it simply changes the circumstances.  So the Merlin was clearly beaten in that debate, and everyone knew it, and there was a definite sense that killing Molly wasn't the moral choice, but the Merlin could still kill her just to be a complete ass.  What happens as a result of a social take out is highly situational. 

[Nomad]

Ophidimancer
*You decide to help me instead of fighting me"* might work for some opponents like a blocking bureaucrat , an angry guy that has common intrests with you, a random bar fly that wasn't actively looking for trouble but when facing a jerk biker hoodloom, the best you can realistically get is having him go his own way instead of creating trouble. (Buy him and his buddies some beer if you are going for combat psychologist ).

As Luminos remarked, it all depends on the scene and the mood. If everyone is spoiling for a fight, then social take out will be something like the pre fight intimidation at most. If no one has blood in his eye, then it can go much better.

[CableRouter]

I guess the question currently at hand is how much an attacker can dictate the actions of the target.  The way I read the rules, the attacker can dictate WHAT the target does, within a pretty wide margin of reason, but not HOW.

A lot of the time, you're not even in the stage where taken out would even apply.

Imagine a thug losing a social conflict, rather than just get humiliated until he loses, he just starts punching and shifts the conflict to a venue where the thug has the upper hand.  One of the easiest ways to prevent any further social interaction on losing ground is for him to use his Fists vs Mr. Smart Mouth's physical defenses to put a sticky aspect and/or consequences on him like "Busted Lip" and tag it for social defense when needed.  "What was that?  I couldn't hear you through all that blood."  <POW>  "You spittin' out teeth now or what?"