Taking Social Consequences as Backlash?

[luminos]

well, what about social stress that takes you out of a fight?  And yes, intimidation can be used during a physical fight, but more as color, or maybe a maneuver.  I mean, we can say Harry does this and Harry does that, but the books are description, not explanations of how those descriptions take place in the framework of the RPG, so its a baseless kind of example.

When you are in a physical fight, the stakes are already set past the point of being scared out of the fight.  Being scared out of the fight is a good coloring for a concession, but if you are setting your stakes when the fight starts, being taken out should have little to do with social composure.  The stakes simply aren't appropriate for direct intimidation attacks in a fist fight, just like the stakes aren't appropriate for intimidation attacks in a public debate.

[CMEast]

Not true, social attacks can be just as effective at taking out an opponent in a physical fight. In a fight against someone you can say you know their boss, or you can threaten them, or you can persuade them that you aren't worth fighting, or that they've got the wrong guy. As long as it makes narrative sense you can do it.

Stress isn't damage, it's their will to continue the conflict.

[luminos]

All of those things make sense, if you aren't already throwing fists at each other.  If you are setting your stakes before conflict begins, you don't run into this confusion.

[Ophidimancer]

well, what about social stress that takes you out of a fight?

Taken Out is Taken Out, yes?

And yes, intimidation can be used during a physical fight, but more as color, or maybe a maneuver.  I mean, we can say Harry does this and Harry does that, but the books are description, not explanations of how those descriptions take place in the framework of the RPG, so its a baseless kind of example.

Not if the descriptions happen to be able to be modeled by the rules.  When Harry pisses someone off enough to make a mistake, or bluff's them with a display of power, even after a physical fight has started, that's him making a Social attack to try and Take Out an opponent.

When you are in a physical fight, the stakes are already set past the point of being scared out of the fight.  Being scared out of the fight is a good coloring for a concession, but if you are setting your stakes when the fight starts, being taken out should have little to do with social composure.  The stakes simply aren't appropriate for direct intimidation attacks in a fist fight, just like the stakes aren't appropriate for intimidation attacks in a public debate.

I think I disagree, both for real life and for game purposes.  I think that Taken Out is Taken Out, no matter which Stress track you attack.  Obviously trying to threaten someone with physical violence when physical violence has already broken out is useless, but that just means one needs to get more creative with one's social attacks.  Maybe making some grand display of martial prowess, magical might, or social leverage (blackmail material?) would work.  After all, that thug attacking you might not respond well to physical threats, but what if you pull out a picture of his daughter and imply nasty things, maybe he'll think twice, he might even get Taken Out, or Concede.

[luminos]

At this point, its just a basic disagreement over how stakes for conflicts should be rearranged.  We have no more progress to make in this particular argument.

[Ophidimancer]

Not true, social attacks can be just as effective at taking out an opponent in a physical fight. In a fight against someone you can say you know their boss, or you can threaten them, or you can persuade them that you aren't worth fighting, or that they've got the wrong guy. As long as it makes narrative sense you can do it.

Stress isn't damage, it's their will to continue the conflict.

Exactly!

[Ophidimancer]

At this point, its just a basic disagreement over how stakes for conflicts should be rearranged.  We have no more progress to make in this particular argument.

If you say so.

[JosephKell]

To me, physical stress represents how much your body can take.  Mental stress is how much your sanity can take.  And social stress is how much your reputation can take before you just look foolish.

Of those, physical and mental are the result of you.  The durability of your reputation is dependent on those around you.

If the situation is a single foe surrounded by PCs, with no other witnesses, that isn't a social conflict unless the players want it to be.  If no one is there is laugh when a PC is left speechless, so what?

So I think that for there to be "social backlash" it would require very particular circumstances.  A veil making a person mute or appear to be "inverted" for color. makes sense.

Although, I could see a situation where Dresden has had "social backlash."  In Fool Moon he just blew the tires out of that big rig, then when he tried right after to blow down what's-his-name he failed.  He looked kind of stupid and it gave the guy something to tag to avoid being intimidated.

But as people have said.  What is the punishment of taking social stress in a physical conflict?  If it is a way to take 2 or 3 dots of stress on a track that may not be targeted.

I guess I would just encourage GMs to consider throwing a few intimidation attacks into a scene then.  If someone just did a bad spell and is feeling foolish/embarrassed/weak, go for the "take out" via social attacks.

[ryanroyce]

Taken Out is Taken Out, yes?

 Not necessarily.  I mean, you simply cannot be killed with Social attacks.  As the trade-off, Social attacks won't get you arrested (with few exceptions).  There's a reason that most Social Conflicts in the novels usually involve some very good reason why violence isn't an option (or at least a highly undesirable one).

Not if the descriptions happen to be able to be modeled by the rules.  When Harry pisses someone off enough to make a mistake, or bluff's them with a display of power, even after a physical fight has started, that's him making a Social attack to try and Take Out an opponent.

 Or Harry mouths off to the wrong person, who then simply pulls out a gun and attempts to ventilate his brain.  Or goes to cut his throat while he's bound under running water.

I think I disagree, both for real life and for game purposes.  I think that Taken Out is Taken Out, no matter which Stress track you attack.  Obviously trying to threaten someone with physical violence when physical violence has already broken out is useless, but that just means one needs to get more creative with one's social attacks.  Maybe making some grand display of martial prowess, magical might, or social leverage (blackmail material?) would work.  After all, that thug attacking you might not respond well to physical threats, but what if you pull out a picture of his daughter and imply nasty things, maybe he'll think twice, he might even get Taken Out, or Concede.

 Yeah, *IF* you have a picture of their daughter or some other genuine leverage.  Without that, they can simply respond to your empty threats with an immediate Concession of the social conflict (the specifics of which are up to them) and get back to the violence.  For example, Harry considers the Nickelheads to be treacherous by default, so no amount of Rapport or Deceit will ever get him to simply "take their word for it".  Thus, Nico needs to bring something else to the table, such as revealing that he knows Molly is standing by the sink, to convince Harry that he might have a sniper in the tree house taking aim at her.  Harry could call Nico's bluff, but is it worth the risk? 

 For the sake of argument, let's assume that Nico was bluffing and Harry did call him on it.  Effectively, Harry Conceded that conflict to Nico, but since Nico didn't actually have the sniper in place, it didn't matter.

[Ophidimancer]

I mean, you simply cannot be killed with Social attacks.

I already noted this.  Still, social attacks can end a conflict just as well as physical attacks.

Or Harry mouths off to the wrong person, who then simply pulls out a gun and attempts to ventilate his brain.  Or goes to cut his throat while he's bound under running water.

What happened there is that Harry either applied an ENRAGED Aspect to the target of his attack, or simply caused Stress but didn't Take him Out, or the target took a Consequence of ENRAGED.  Or, perhaps, Harry failed in his attack, his target defended well enough to not take any Stress and returned the favor with a physical attack, or actually torture would probably count as a Mental attack.

Yeah, *IF* you have a picture of their daughter or some other genuine leverage.

Well yeah, obviously it would require an attack with actual substance.  That was just an example, friend.

Without that, they can simply respond to your empty threats with an immediate Concession of the social conflict (the specifics of which are up to them) and get back to the violence.  For example, Harry considers the Nickelheads to be treacherous by default, so no amount of Rapport or Deceit will ever get him to simply "take their word for it".  Thus, Nico needs to bring something else to the table, such as revealing that he knows Molly is standing by the sink, to convince Harry that he might have a sniper in the tree house taking aim at her.  Harry could call Nico's bluff, but is it worth the risk? 

 For the sake of argument, let's assume that Nico was bluffing and Harry did call him on it.  Effectively, Harry Conceded that conflict to Nico, but since Nico didn't actually have the sniper in place, it didn't matter.

Sure it did, it left Harry SHAKEN or SEEING DENARIAN MINIONS IN EVERY SHADOW as a Consequence.

[Bubba Amon Hotep]

let me see if I can add fuel to the fire.  Conflicts.  You can have full Social Conflict, full Physical Conflict, or MIXED Conflict. 

Full Social example would be two attorney's going at it in a courtroom.  Each using social skills to sway a jury to their side.

Full Physical Conflict would be a wrestling match.  Two people going at it on the mat, protective gear and mouthpieces.

Mixed.  Baseball or Basketball, take your pick.  In each, athletes are using physical skills to score points, while using social skills to not let the trash talk take them out of the game.  I have seen players after a game so shutdown from the trash talking that they have been in tears.  I would consider them "Taken out" by social attacks.

A more physical example?  A street fight.  Both fighters posture themselves, each launching social attacks, and racking up consequences.  Little doubts about skills, confusion over whether or not they can win, fuming rage that clouds the level head needed in a fight.  All those social consequences become tagged by the fighters when punches start getting swung.  They all add up, and the one that lost the social battle can easily loose the fight as the crowd laughs at the fighter that lost the social battle, which in turn lowers his self esteem and increases his unthinking rage.

Can you be killed by a social attack?  No, but you can be taken out.  Withdrawn, catatonic, so shaken up inside that you want to walk away and curl up into a ball cutting yourself off from the world that hurt you.  How many times have we read or heard about someone having a nervous breakdown and just loosing it.  Fainting from stress or over excitement?  All equal being taken out socially.

[Mindflayer94]

I view it as, when you lose a social conflict mixed into a physical conflict, through a social take out is that you are conned into thinking it's not worth your while. Pour éxamplé the PCs are searching for a sword, to discover that their enemy has it in their hands, the PCs say something along the lines of "look buddy, why take the sword, think of all the work. Not just keeping out of our hands, but if we're both looking for it someone else surely is, then there's the physical maintenance cleaning a sword is a b****. Look give me the sword, why not have your enemies come after me I'll take them out with my death curse, then you can collect the sword. Two birds one stone." then the enemy hands it over. Though that's not how I view purely social conflict, but just mixed physical/social conflicts.

At least that's how I understand it.

[luminos]

I obviously have a different view of what a physical conflict is than a lot of people.  The whole talking people into thinking a fight isn't worth it kind of thing is a purely social conflict in my mind.  The whole business of trash talk and posturing and scaring people is purely social.  You haven't actually begun the physical conflict, or you got the guy to give a temporary concession to move things back into social territory if thats what you are doing.  Whereas a physical conflict is when the fist are already flying, and you can toss insults, but for the most part the other guys head is already in the fight and the best you can do with threats and insults in to momentarily distract him so that you have a bonus for landing your next hit.

[Ophidimancer]

Whereas a physical conflict is when the fist are already flying, and you can toss insults, but for the most part the other guys head is already in the fight and the best you can do with threats and insults in to momentarily distract him so that you have a bonus for landing your next hit.

So basically you're making a houserule that says that once the physical attacks come out, social attacks no longer count as attacks?

[luminos]

No, its not a house rule at all.  The rules don't say one way or another how you have to set the stakes for particular conflicts.  I'm simply running on an understanding that the stakes of a fist fight (and here I mean a fight that has already started, fists are flying etc.) typically don't cover social composure.  Its no more inconsistent than my understanding that you can't use fists in the middle of a debate without some kind of change in stakes.  If you are in a debate, the stakes are to convince everyone that you have the better argument.  Punching the other guy would be effectively a concession of the debate, because that is clearly an inappropriate method to "take out" in the given context.  Intimidation during a fight is similar, if a little bit different.  The stakes of a fight are typically implied to be standing when the other guy goes down.  If those are in fact the stakes, then intimidation can give circumstantial bonuses (i.e., maneuvers) but can't give the final result.  If its a case of all methods are equally effective in all circumstances, it just differs by narrative flavor, I think you are being too lose in the way stakes are being set for conflicts.  Perhaps its a difference of play style, but I'm convinced the way I'm doing it makes sense.  Every time you try to show a situation Harry has been in and model it using your method of understanding, know that it would be just as easy for me to do the same thing with my understanding, and it would still be coherent.