That One Guy - Heckler At The Training Dojo

[Bubba Amon Hotep]

Lots of valid points in this thread, and any GM should read through the various posts, and treat them as a buffet. Taking usable notions and ideas his players would enjoy and rolling them into his GM style so that the wanted end result can occur.  The players having fun.

Personally. Social combat is needed in the campaign I run.  The players gleam information from contacts, thugs, and local yocals via social combat.  They like roleplaying it out with the myriad of dice rolls instead of a single *make a contact roll*.

One situation comes to mind where a player approached a group of "Party Boys" in an attempt to gleam information about a drug dealer in the area.  Through the course of the Social Conflict, he won them over, gained a positive position in their eyes, and earned a new contact in the party world.  Despite this, however, the Party Boys ended up calling his social bluff, and forced the Player to concede in the end.  The player conceded that they would meet with the drug dealer, and the player would buy drugs for the group.  The player even has an aspect that played beautifully into the drama.  "I did what?"

IE:  Real World example of Peer pressure forcing someone to do what they wouldn't normally do, or A Person befriending others by doing something stupid to win trust.

As the GM, I used the outcome to move the plot, and was sure to include these new friends in future plot as hooks.  Without the Social Conflict none of that story and connection would be possible.

What am I trying to say, Do what makes it fun for your players. 

[noclue]

They also serve a third, which is primarily what I (and I believe Mr. Death, though I can't speak for him with assurance) have been talking about:  An abstract representation of the character's overall well-being and resistance to succumbing in the face of hardship.  The issue here is the representation breaking suspension of disbelief, which is a huge factor to a role playing game, and very much worth discussing.

I've never considered consequences as an abstract measure of the characters over-all well being. Is there a page reference for that? For me stress boxes are a mechanical measure of how badly you can lose a conflict before it leaves a mark (i.e. an aspect). The Consequences you take are, as DevonApple said above, narrative armor, and also a mechanic for having the fallout from conflicts enter the fiction through tagging and compels. Translating the stress and consequences taken into fiction is the job of narration and roleplay. But the fact that a hit takes someone out because they have two social consequences doesn't mean those consequences necessarily track to the fiction directly (like depression made you weak, so the punch hurt more). Maybe they got lucky with that punch and hit a soft spot. We don't always physically react the same way to the same stimuli? I don't see why characters would.

An interesting effect of that is that if the player takes supernatural toughness, they should be expecting a lot of social problems. The game is designed so that it's really hard to escape a life of difficulties and tension. Amp up your physical resistance? Cue emotional drama.

[noclue]

They're like Fate Points in that way. Having spent all of your FP makes you weak and vulnerable, but FP don't correspond to anything within the game's universe.

This.

And that brings up a good question. Why? Why consciously design a system where social and physical consequences overlap? Where a reputation can be used to take you out in a physical fight? It's by design, not an accident, after all.

Here's my thinking on that: The game makes an assumption that as long as its setup the world and characters correctly, with appropriate aspects to create cool color and tense complications, then the game functions best when characters are invoking those aspects and can't just dismiss a worthy compel in an offhand manner. Conflicts are a powerful dial in the GMs hand to pace the game. You want an interesting colorful fight with the supernaturally tough dude? Soften him up with a dramatic fight with his girlfriend first. It's not an encounter based game where the GM is throwing out challenges to see if the PCs are clever enough to use their resources and overcome the difficulties. The fact that social and physical consequences overlap is a big clue that the game doesn't view conflicts the way you might in DnD. You wouldn't port a rule into DnD where an argument reduced a PC's hit points because the game is about meeting challenges until your hp runs out. But fate is about going hard for what you want while having things you put on your charactersheet complicate your life in interesting ways. In this regard, Consequences are a narrative pacing mechanic.

[Silverblaze]

No Clue makes valid points.  I will say however that, every game I play, regardless of system is a very heavy roleplaying experience.  The fact that a superhero game is mostly about beating bad guys; doesn't preclude roleplaying heavily if I want.  Nor does D & D.  If I just wanna bash monsters I'll play Hero Quest or a video game.

By that same token, just because Old World of Darkness is based on the struggle of the monster within and the downward spiral of the PC's doesn't mean I can't get in fights and wreck stuff when I want.

Bubba Amon Hotep hit the nail on the head.  Make your game fit your players and your running style.

In the end: a game with a very strict consequence system works great if everyone is on the same page about the narrative nature of how the particular game is being played.  However, many players will see it more as a fashion in which to make the game easier or harder on characters depending upon the circumstances.  For instance the opposite simplistic view of consequences and stress is this: how much damage someone can take before i win or lose.  Hence the way Victor Sell's heart 'sploder spell works.  Seeing that essentially says people can take roughly 26 damage before they lose.  having all the types of stress/damage lead up to the same result makes it easier to lose/win depending upon who is taking the stress and who is dealing it.

The system of consequences is very frustrating to deal with when in a mixed group, people who see both sides of the conversation we are having.  The group must adapt to such things or the game starts to fail everyone.  Since I play with such a group i have to accept both interpretations and realize the flaws of both ways of thinking.  I see value in both arguements, but I know mechanically why it seems flawed and can't really refute it.

That said, I'm not so much arguing the fact that it is bad or wrong, but that it has inherent flaws with certain groups and don't care for being told:

There are plenty of valid playstyle objections to social combat rules, but I don't think this is one.

My first instinct is to say that you apperently haven't played with a group truly willing to abuse your NPC's consequences.  it is quite hard to make a challenge for a group willin to do so.  narrative game or not, if the players never feel challenged you might as well put the dice aside and just sit around talk about how the story should go... the conflicts are (just like many keep saying) part of the exciting unknowable part of the game. 

From personal experience, if even the "BIG BAD" is bombarded with social, mental, and physical stress.  He/she goes down fast...bar none.  (Unless the "BIG BAD" is rediculously and needlessly awesome at all forms of defense and such...also hard to accept as a player and hard to justify as a GM)

I simply can't see continuing this debate from my standpoint.  I honestly see all the other points involved.  I'm sure the system works much of the time.  I just can't see why many people can't see the breakdown in game/system where I found it.

[noclue]

Nothing in my post was meant to imply that you can't roleplay in any other games or even that the way DFRPG does it is better, just that the designs are using encounters and ablative mechanics towards different goals.

[Sanctaphrax]

It's not an encounter based game where the GM is throwing out challenges to see if the PCs are clever enough to use their resources and overcome the difficulties.

I guess I've been playing it all wrong, then.

@Silverblaze: But how do your players inflict social stress without your consent? What stops the BBEG from just stabbing them as soon as they open their mouths?

Most of the big physical challenges I've thrown at the PCs in my PbP game could not have been softened up socially first.

[Orladdin]

So, the BBEG is a decently qualified villain in most cases, right Silverblaze?  Why doesn't he see his shortcomings and keep some dudes around that can counter those tactics?


For example, Marcone is an interesting villain (even though he works with Dresden a lot, he is a villain).  He is incredibly skilled at social conflicts.  He's decent at physical encounters because of his training and vast weapon stocks, but he's not super-tough by any means.  He's intelligent, but not focused in many of those conflict areas.  So, what does he do?  He hires Hendricks as muscle, in case conflict kicks off.  He hires Gard as intello-magical protection.  And those two things include pre-emptive defenses, too.  Hendricks and his boys sweep an area to ensure there's no traps set, Gard checks for wards or magical land mines.  They stay with him when he's in danger.  Attempt to use magic on Marcone?  Gard steps in and deals with that challenge.  Try to punch Marcone in the face?  Hendricks will have a talk with you about that-- with his meaty fist.  But, you try and talk Marcone down?  He's right there, smiling and talking you down with his "Daddy Voice."

Try spicing up your encounters like this.  If you put the group of players against a singular enemy, (or a singularly built enemy) the players will win handedly.  That's true in ANY GAME EVER*. 



*_{(Haven't you ever wondered why Dragons have always sucked in D&D?  That's why.  People always put a single enemy against a group of players.)}

[Silverblaze]

So, the BBEG is a decently qualified villain in most cases, right Silverblaze?  Why doesn't he see his shortcomings and keep some dudes around that can counter those tactics?


For example, Marcone is an interesting villain (even though he works with Dresden a lot, he is a villain).  He is incredibly skilled at social conflicts.  He's decent at physical encounters because of his training and vast weapon stocks, but he's not super-tough by any means.  He's intelligent, but not focused in many of those conflict areas.  So, what does he do?  He hires Hendricks as muscle, in case conflict kicks off.  He hires Gard as intello-magical protection.  And those two things include pre-emptive defenses, too.  Hendricks and his boys sweep an area to ensure there's no traps set, Gard checks for wards or magical land mines.  They stay with him when he's in danger.  Attempt to use magic on Marcone?  Gard steps in and deals with that challenge.  Try to punch Marcone in the face?  Hendricks will have a talk with you about that-- with his meaty fist.  But, you try and talk Marcone down?  He's right there, smiling and talking you down with his "Daddy Voice."

Try spicing up your encounters like this. If you put the group of players against a singular enemy, (or a singularly built enemy) the players will win handedly.  That's true in ANY GAME EVER*. 



*_{(Haven't you ever wondered why Dragons have always sucked in D&D?  That's why.  People always put a single enemy against a group of players.)}

I stand by my opinion that if everyone in that encounter still targets one foe with all of that in the same scene the BBEG is in trouble.  Nothing stops them from ignoring Gard and Hendricks for a round while they total Marcone like a Porsche to a tree. 

I don't like one singular foe to be good at everything unless it is the culimnation of the "campaign". 

Dragons in AD&D were woefully underpowered. Likely are in most D&D systems. I agree in most systems one foe cannot defeat (or come close) a group of PC's.

End of the day, I've seen other systems handle social interactions better IMO.  I think it could be handled better.  It seems to work by book for most tables however.  I can find some value in it.  I just don't care for that aspect of the system.

However, I'm clearly in the minority.  I've argued this view in other threads, my opinion is known and I grow weary of this. 

[noclue]

I will agree that there are systems that handle social interactions better. I just don't have a problem with the way consequences work.