A bit frustrated

[sinker]

I don't think you can compare physical combat with social combat.

It's what the book does.

I like the answer Kommisar (and it's a good one) but I still have a hard time and here's the reason why. How is one directly influencing perception using Deceit or rapport? One is creating a situation, and the response of the person makes the difference in their social standing, exactly as if you had pantsed them. This is the part that I can't get over. I don't see a difference between magically creating said situation and doing it with Deceit or Rapport.

[Richard_Chilton]

Creating a situation is not in and of itself embarrassing.  It's how everyone reacts.

Example: Someone is giving a lecture and BAM - magically his pants are around his ankles.  Someone laughs and the victim turns to the logical suspect and says "Is this high school? Junior High? Grow up why don't you." - then pulls up his pants and continues talking.

That's two actions - magic to drop the pants, then a social attack tagging "his pants are down" and maybe others - depending how many people created aspects on his pantless condition.  Some might say that everyone who laughs is doing a social maneuver to tag the victim with another "embarrassed" type aspect. The victim then wins the social act, launching one of his own to embarrass the prankster.

Is that likely to happen? No, not unless the person who was pantsed has ridiculously high social skills, but it could.

And I have seen some politicians get pied in the face and make light of it, joking with reporters about it.  Most people who are pied are shocked and embarrassed, but if the character can win the social conflict then the character can when the social conflict.

If Bill is a master of air magic and picks up a pie, sending it into Ted's face, then that's a physical action.  Bill can tag "You've got pie on your face", "You look ridiculous", or other temporary aspects in the following social attack, but having high social skills won't make that pie land any harder.

Richard

[sinker]

So to compare could you give me an example of a social conflict using only social skills to achieve a similar taken out result of embarrassed (or not as is the case above)?

[devonapple]

We've had such discussions before, and it was successfully demonstrated that the same humiliating (or bolstering) spell effect can have different levels of success depending on the savoir-faire of the target. Some people are just going to be easier to jerk around socially than other people, and there just aren't compelling reasons for a given magical spell to consistently, successfully affect two different people the same way in a Social conflict.

At the end of the day, the most logical and efficient way for magic to supplement Social combat in this game system is to create taggable Aspects - that is, until one commits to using Mental spell effects to manipulate the target and/or any audience/bystanders in a position to weigh in on the Social Conflict.

"Winning the Crowd" can be as easy as a taggable Aspect from a Spell Maneuver, or as hard as a massive Thaumaturgical Ritual designed to entice everyone in "the Crowd" to start making their own Social attacks against the true target.

[Taran]

I also think that social combat is more than trying to embarrass someone, it's also trying to win an argument or make someone see your point of view.  This thread is an example of a massive social combat and it's done with reasoning and words and I don't see how magic can do that.  I'm inclined to side with those who've been saying that you can only maneuver or block and not attack.

Richard won me over...I concede...

[mostlyawake]

there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise.  RAW, that's completely valid.

So is a spell that replaces your guns with a 9 for the same duration.

The rapport spell only breaks the fourth law of magic if the guns spell breaks the first.  Did increasing your guns skill magically mean you "killed them with magic"?  Most GMs that I've read here seem to say no. Does using your rapport of magical 9 mean you are convincing them to do something other than what you want? Yes.  Is it lawbreaking? Probably not. 


Now, everyone pretty much seems to agree that doing mental stress would be a lawbreaker.  But now we're adding that social stress also seems to do the same thing?

[devonapple]

there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise.  RAW, that's completely valid.

Absolutely.

The question is: can a Ritual or Evocation deal direct Social Stress?

[mostlyawake]

Magic dealing direct social stress isn't, as far as I read, stated directly in the books.  But we KNOW it can deal mental, we KNOW it can deal physical, and it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to then limit it away from social stress. The system is supposed to allow magic to be ultimately versatile.  If you can think of it as a spell, it should be possible.  And I know I've seen it modeled on one of the major blogs.

The interesting thing about that, though, is the thought that yes, magic can deal mental and physical stress, but BOTH go lawbreaker pretty quickly.  Avoiding lawbreaker means using blocks and maneuvers instead of "attacks".  So if we extrapolate from that, I guess if you caused social stress with magic it does indeed make sense for it to go lawbreaker.

[BumblingBear]

What about socially maneuvering someone to where they're in or near a school before pantsing them?

Then they're a federal felon to boot.

[Taran]

Here was my original question regarding social attacks:

Can you do social attacks with spells.  Like do a Glibness spell so the power acts
as your deciet, or an elequence spell and have it act as your rapport.

Here was the first few answers I got specifically regarding buffing your skills:

A wizard could very easily do a thaumatergical spell that gives him or her like 3 aspects for a day that would lend to social combat.
This would allow the wizard to basically have 3 free fate points in social combat.

As for rapport 9 how would you even begin to do that? Just because magic is used doesn't mean the player doesn't need to justify how the action is possible. The only way I can think of to do that would be mucking around with you own mind and even so you still have to figure out how a rapport 9 mind looks like. Hideously complex, only possible with Thaumaturgy, and likely to screw up your own brain the way mind altering magic tends to do. You could probably skirt the laws by saying you weren't invading the mind of another.

But now I'm getting this:

there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise.  RAW, that's completely valid.
So is a spell that replaces your guns with a 9 for the same duration.
The rapport spell only breaks the fourth law of magic if the guns spell breaks the first.  Did increasing your guns skill magically mean you "killed them with magic"?  Most GMs that I've read here seem to say no. Does using your rapport of magical 9 mean you are convincing them to do something other than what you want? Yes.  Is it lawbreaking? Probably not.  
Now, everyone pretty much seems to agree that doing mental stress would be a lawbreaker.  But now we're adding that social stress also seems to do the same thing?

So which is it?  

EDIT  @ devonapple  Just read your post...sorry...but I was lead to beleive I couldn't do this.

[evileeyore]

I'm having a thought...


Both physical and mental stress represent actual internalized "injury", physical is the character's body, mental the character's mind.

Social stress represents externalized injury.  There is really no actual damage done to the person directly, social consequences affect how one is percieved by society, the organism to which the character belongs.

In this light I could see a thaum curse set at 30 shifts that ligthly influences the way someone interacts with society, the slowly building bad day/week/season, the growing tension between them and the people they interact with, when the character speaks his words are taken in a bad if not the worst light, when they act their intentions are misunderstood, misrepresented... culminating in them eventually being "socially taken out".  In this case, I can see Lawbreaker applying, but it's a tenuous connection.  No one's mind has been influenced permenantly, directly, or to lasting harm.



I could even see Evocation Social Attacks, but it would require a different set of elements than the Hermetic White Council is used to dealing with.

The Fae could do it certianly, it's right in their bailiwick, but they are never shown operating in this manner, it's all physical illusions, light bending and fairy dust, or direct mind fraking.

Canonically, I don't think we've ever seen an example of it, but then I think Jim has kept his magic on a Hermetic base, he has pretty much ignored non-European Traditional magical styles.  The three most prevalent magic slinging groups have all been of European origin, White Council, the Fae, and the Black Court.

[Kommisar]

It's what the book does.

I like the answer Kommisar (and it's a good one) but I still have a hard time and here's the reason why. How is one directly influencing perception using Deceit or rapport? One is creating a situation, and the response of the person makes the difference in their social standing, exactly as if you had pantsed them. This is the part that I can't get over. I don't see a difference between magically creating said situation and doing it with Deceit or Rapport.

Well, I agree.  There is no difference in that both are used as a means to create the situation that deals another social stress.  My point, is that magic is not directly dealing said social stress.  For instance, using your de-pantsing spell, it would have no effect targeting an Amazonian tribal leader that isn't wearing any.  Were as, shooting someone with a fireball is shooting someone with a fireball.  You are capable of dealing physical stress to the target (even if they have armor, dodge it or whatever).


As for the other arguement

Nice explanation, but it's skipping one glaring fact:

Magic is causation.

Use air magic to shove someone off a building.  They die from the fall, yet somehow your magic is still to blame.

Create a ball of ball (heat) and project it at someone, once launched you have no more control over it than you do a bullet fired from a gun.... however it is still your magic that would cause the death if they were to die.

Thus the same with the 30 shift "depantsing".

You are confusing the argument.  Pushing someone off a building with air magic and, therefore, causing a death with magic is a 1rst Law argument.  Not an effect argument.  Most everyone agrees that with pushing someone off a building with air magic the actual, technical, cause of the physical stress (and possible death) is blunt trauma from impacting the ground and not the air blast that pushed him.  There are MANY posts and threads here concerning 1rst Law interpretations and I will leave those there.

The difference here is that using magic to drop someone's pants is not a violation of the Laws of Magic.

As for a 30-shift "depantsing" spell; I would not allow this spell to operate as you have outlined its effects in a game I run.  I would allow the spell; no doubt.  But I would not allow for it to cause 30 shifts of social stress for the simple reason that I do not believe that in all instances and circumstances that having one's pants fall down would cause that much social stress to someone.  Under the right conditions, yes, it could.  But that is the kicker right there: "under the right conditions."  That is the very definition of setting up Aspects with maneuvers, declarations, and such and tagging them for effect.  Example:

Declaration:  "In front of a big crowd"  Aspect
Maneuver:  "Hounded by Scandal" Aspect  (Contacts roll to get Media on him perhaps)
etc...

Then you hit him with a 30-shift spell to cause his pants to fall (or pick other embarrassing incident that does not directly cause physical or mental stress to the individual).  Well, unless he has some very significant magical defenses around him, his pants are coming down.  I might even give a bonus for effect depending on the means by which your spell drops those pants.  But it will not automatically cause 30-shifts of social damage.  For the same reason that if you cast a 30-shift magical spell to create a slick spot in the shower for him to slip on the fall in the shower will not automatically cause 30-shifts of physical stress.  I would say that his shower is really, really slick!  Make him roll his athletics against a difficulty of 30.  He's sure to fall... but not to take 30 shifts of physical damage.  Now, drop a satellite on his home....

You are targeting his pants (or belt) with the spell.  Not him.  He suffers indirectly from the spell that is effecting his pants.  His pants are toast, though.


My challenge in this issue is trying to think of a way that one would directly attack someone socially with magic.

  -  You can turn him hideously ugly; but that is a physical attack (transformation) that has social repercussions
  -  You can inflict him with a curse that causes him to swear or say inappropriate things... but that is a mental attack again with social repercussions
  -  You can use magic to manipulate his environment in an infinite number of ways.  But those are maneuvers you stack for a social attack.
  -  You can use magic to give yourself an enhanced rapport, intimidation, presence or, well, any other skill with which you could then use to attack someone socially.  But you are using your skill to cause social stress to the target; not magic.  Even if that skill is boosted by magic.
 
Am I missing a method here?  Because I simply can not think of a way that one can sling a direct bolt of social stress causing magic at someone.  Now, the rules allow for it because the rules are infinitely flexible in many regards.  But just because the rules allow for such an action out of their inherent flexibility does not mean that one has to allow it in game.


As an aside, a target should always be allowed a defense roll of some sort and social attacks are no different.  Presence is a solid default roll in most situations.  Such as playing off losing one's pants or getting hit in the face with pie.

[devonapple]

I think one way to cast a clear light on the question is to take this out of Dresden Files for a moment and look at another setting: let's use a fantasy-enabled version of Feudal Japan. A game group may opt to take the "Social" stress track and reframe it as an "Honor" or "Face" track. This may end up looking like a straw-man argument, but bear with it for a moment.

So you have your high-Presence Samurai roaming the wilderness, flush with four Social/Honor stress boxes and a few honor-related Aspects. Nobody else around. Until a dastardly Wu-Jen pops from behind a tree and lets loose with a 20-shift spell attacking the Samurai's honor (targeting the Social stress track).

What is that spell going to look like?

[evileeyore]

-  You can use magic to give yourself an enhanced rapport, intimidation, presence or, well, any other skill with which you could then use to attack someone socially.  But you are using your skill to cause social stress to the target; not magic.  Even if that skill is boosted by magic.

I still don't see why I can't just create the "The Shame of Being Depantsed" Spirit Evocation spell, shift it up to around 10 and fire it off.  Just because it's meant to cause "shame" from being depants doesn't mean it actually will if it's resisted.  Anymore than my level 10 Death Bolt automatically kills people, it doesn't unless it deals enough stress.

However if the spell is successful, his pants drop, he takes stress.  If it's enough to take him out, I declare how.


As I said, the Canon doesn't deal with social magic because the genre it's set in doesn't favor that style.

I think one way to cast a clear light on the question is to take this out of Dresden Files for a moment and look at another setting: let's use a fantasy-enabled version of Feudal Japan. A game group may opt to take the "Social" stress track and reframe it as an "Honor" or "Face" track. This may end up looking like a straw-man argument, but bear with it for a moment.

So you have your high-Presence Samurai roaming the wilderness, flush with four Social/Honor stress boxes and a few honor-related Aspects. Nobody else around. Until a dastardly Wu-Jen pops from behind a tree and lets loose with a 20-shift spell attacking the Samurai's honor (targeting the Social stress track).

What is that spell going to look like?

Likely it'll cause him to face any and every shameful or cowardly act he's ever committed.  He'll have to reasses his Honor, failure to resist and he takes Honor Stress, his moral fabric is weakened.  That all this takes place in a heartbeat is appropriate for the genre.

[Wolfwood2]

I think the limitation of, "Okay, explain how that works," shouldn't be underestimated here.  Even for magic.

Yes, there are very few rules limitations on what magic can do, but ever with full Evocation or Thaumaturgy you're still supposed to have a magical 'style' and trappings that you use to determine what is or isn't reasonable for your PC's magic to accomplish.  I mean, why limit it to magic?  Why can't I say, "I'm going to use an Athletics roll to socially attack him."?

There might be circumstances where you can do that.  Maybe the social conflict is with a gymnist, and you're shaming him by performing an intricate routine that puts efforts to shame.  I don't know.  It's easier to justify with magic, but the ultimate limitation is that everybody around the table thinks it's reasonable and that the narrative justification has been established.