How do you do a group social conflict?

[Ghsdkgb]

Physical conflicts are easy, each person attacks one other person unless they're attacking a zone, etc. But in a social conflict, let's say I have my party trying to talk the Lord Baron of Cheese into giving up his gouda. Do they each get a turn to say something and potentially deal social stress to Lord Baron? And then when he talks, does he focus on one person, or does everyone roll to defend against the social stress?

The books all have one-on-one encounters for everything :-/

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Treat social attacks the same as physical.  Single target, spray, or zone.

And yeah, give them all a shot each exchange.  Of course it could be more effective for lesser skilled PCs to preform a supportive maneuver like Lending Silent Support, Watching For Tells, or Defensive Wiseassery and pass the tag to the most skilled of their group then going full defensive unless they have a better idea for the remaining exchanges.  Weak attacks can be worse than no attacks because of defensive spin.

[sinker]

Yeah, mechanically you still do initiative the same way (except I think the appropriate skill is empathy). Everyone gets a turn and may do any of the things that they could do in physical conflict (attack, maneuver, and block). Keep in mind though that social conflicts tend to be much more conceptual, with zones that can apply to ideologies or relation to the other combatants as well as physical location, or blocks aimed at specific topics or concepts.

[Raidensparx]

Fate is honestly pretty easy.  Most conflicts will act the same, as said above.  And sometimes as a GM, you just have to make a call on what makes for better story.  AN EXAMPLE:

In the Dresden Files Noir game I'm running, we have two social characters.  One is a White Court Virgin who operates a Speakeasy, while the other is a Man of Faith Pianist.  Their combat skills...suck.  And their stealth skills...suck.  Luckily there's a Warden character for combat and a Werehawk for stealth.  Anywho, they tend to rely on each other for social conflicts since they tend to be the distraction a lot, using an act they have of being an actor and actress too dumb to know any better who stumbled across one of Capone's warehouses and accidentally bumped into the guards.  One would initiate the social combat, while the other would either make their own "attack" if the target had a pretty low chance of winning, or would do a supportive maneuver to play off what they're doing.  And I'd let them invoke the aspect they shared from chargen, since DFChargen involves you having at least one aspect backstory shared with another in the group.

They managed to convince two of Capone's thugs that they'd be great in pictures.  But yeah, just treat conflict as normal, and use your intuition when they want to do something you're not sure they can.  After all, as GM you technically don't have to follow any of the rules given.  You can use them at your discretion.

[Silverblaze]

This is just one more reason I do not like, nor use social combat.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

This is just one more reason I do not like, nor use social combat.

I don't dislike it but coming off 20-25 years of D&D style play, I tend to forget that it exists now and then.  Honestly, I kind of like that characters don't have to be tied to their players' social abilities or lack thereof.  That would have helped out quite a lot back when I was a Dumbass Teenager.  I suppose it helps now that I'm a Cynical, Middle-Aged Bastard too.

[UmbraLux]

Physical conflicts are easy, each person attacks one other person unless they're attacking a zone, etc. But in a social conflict, let's say I have my party trying to talk the Lord Baron of Cheese into giving up his gouda. Do they each get a turn to say something and potentially deal social stress to Lord Baron? And then when he talks, does he focus on one person, or does everyone roll to defend against the social stress?

The books all have one-on-one encounters for everything :-/

Diaspora has a good example / set up for social combat.  In brief, you

• set the stakes (What are the results of success and failure?)
• create a 'zone' map - in social combat zones are concentric circles implying degrees of intimacy / agreement / caving in / etc (zones have no borders initially)
• decide how much time each exchange will take and how much time they have to succeed (if there's a limit)
• actions are one of:  move, attack composure, obstruct, maneuver, or move (convince) another

Since barriers (obstructions) can be created between zones, it's often easier to move closer to your convincee / target before trying to get them to move.  "I agree with you but..."   Depending on goals, you may also attack composure - a flat out social attack.  Zone barriers / obstructions can be set defensively or offensively.  "I distract myself by counting backwards from 100!" or "I suggest <target's potential allies> don't have <target's> interests at heart."  Maneuvers set aspects as normal and "move another" is attacking with the intention of moving the target one or more zones instead of causing social damage.

It can make social combat surprisingly tactical. 

Diaspora is far more detailed and I may well have misremembered pieces...it's worth picking up for ideas on ways to use FATE!  :)

[kraaze]

This is just one more reason I do not like, nor use social combat.

It seems like DFRPG wouldn't play right without social combat.  One of the key things that keeps my players from making physical combat oriented minmax munchkin characters is the knowledge that such characters would suck in a social conflict.   

Plus of course, social combat is sweet.  Sure encountering an ogre in the nevernever and killing it is cool and all.  Even cooler is to pull your weapons, give him a few hard looks, suggest that he had better keep walking if he wants to keep all his limbs, and win without a shot being fired.  I was part of a party that pulled that off and it was wickedly awesome. 

[Silverblaze]

It works fine.

(Then again I LARPed, for years before I played a tabletop/dice realted RPG)  I am quite biased.

 I've enver enjoyed rolling social encounters.  I prefer to role-play them and if need be roll a skill for effect. 

I think social combat sort of bogs down social encounters with more rolling than is required.

I think this system does it the best I've seen, but I still don't see the need for it.

I honestly to this day think White Wolf (not new world of darkness) has done very well.  It has social powers and the ability to roll results, but the requirement to roleplay how you do it.  Very similar to FATE, or at least this version of it.

[kraaze]

Fair enough, I suppose it's just different games being suited to different types of gamers.  My group needs something like social conflict both in order to keep them munchkining out with maximized fists/weapons/athletics/etc type characters and to force them to not go through life shooting anyone who looks at them funny.  But then my group has mostly D&D experience and that influences their mindset heavily I suppose. 

[ways and means]

Nothing wrong with shooting everything and killing everyone on sight as long as you have glamours or the contacts to cover it up. The Axe crazy psychotic is one of the four noble character types (next to the manipulative !, the hero type and the anti hero type). 

[devonapple]

How I have done it:
1: determine the stakes (as mentioned by Umbralux)
2. designate a Primary for each side who will do the main lifting in the social conflict: they are in social conflict
3. allow their teammates/supporters to create Maneuvers which can be passed to their Primary, but not to deal Social stress themselves

Another way which requires Spirit of the Century (though these rules may be in the SRD):
1: determine the stakes (as mentioned by Umbralux)
2. designate a Primary for each side who will do the main lifting in the social conflict: they are in social conflict
3. treat their teammates/supporters as a set of Minions (using Spirit of the Century), with their own combined Social Stress Track. While they are in the game, they provide a combined bonus to the Primary's attempts to use Intimidate, Rapport, etc. (the supporters would provide a static +1 each, or more if they actually have the skills), but they can be knocked out of the conflict like Minions.

[Sanctaphrax]

@devonapple: I quite like your suggestion, but I don't think it'd work for social conflicts where the participants cannot be divided into teams. How would you adapt that approach to model 10 diplomats from different countries sitting around a table at a peace conference?

[UmbraLux]

@devonapple: I quite like your suggestion, but I don't think it'd work for social conflicts where the participants cannot be divided into teams. How would you adapt that approach to model 10 diplomats from different countries sitting around a table at a peace conference?

I'd figure out the stakes then draw zones, labeling them as degrees of agreement / alliance on the subject under discussion, place each delegate in the appropriate zone, and let the discussion begin.  Your mechanical goal is to move one or more of the participants into the "agree / ally" zone, you fail if they move into the "completely opposed" zone, and you have X number of turns before the meeting adjourns.  Each individual can act in turn and allies can assist each other...just as in normal combat. 

Teams often help speed the process and are good for binary either / or decisions.  A zone map showing degrees of agreement (as above) can end with partial success (or failure) if you're only able to move someone to "qualified agreement" by the meeting's end.  It could also end with varying subjects across the map...some agreeing, some mixed results, and others opposed. 

[Sanctaphrax]

That would indeed work for Diaspora's social combat rules. But if I was using standard DFRPG rules + devonapple's suggestion of designating "primaries" then it probably wouldn't.

So, how would I model my proposed conference using standard rules + devonapple's suggestion?