A House Rule For Social Combat

[sinker]

If you're comparing accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:2 ratio you've already admitted accuracy is more important. 

No, the system itself does that. A stunt may add 1 to accuracy or 2 to stress. We're arguing it's wrong (or at least a bit off).

[Tedronai]

It already is more important, as demonstrated by that reasoning, for example physical attack stunts, which follow the stunt creation guidelines, and for custom stunts following those guidelines.  The same cannot be said for example social attack stunts, which do not follow the stunt creation guidelines.

[Jimmy]

The same cannot be said for example social attack stunts, which do not follow the stunt creation guidelines.

They don't? Why not? Can you elaborate? I don't see why you can't have a stunt that allows you to do more stress in a social conflict during certain circumstances such as Hostage Taker - You inflict Wpn:2 damage during social conflicts in which you hold someone, or something, dear to your opponent against their will.

This follows the stunt creation guidelines. I think lol. That could also be my first mistake, though, thinking.

[Tedronai]

What I was referring to were the 'example stunts' in YS.  The social stunts, there, do not follow the stunt creation guidelines.

[Jimmy]

More recently, I was working on a Telepathy power that would allow its user to give mental commands. Then I realized that these problems could solve one another. So here's the rule:

Sorry if it's been said already, but I was just rereading earlier posts and noticed this from the OP. Wouldn't this be better off as a mental attack? Or was this just put up as background for your thought process?

[Jimmy]

What I was referring to were the 'example stunts' in YS.  The social stunts, there, do not follow the stunt creation guidelines.

Which ones? The only 1 I can see that doesn't really for them is Subtle Menace for Intimidation, other than that I can't see where they dont.

[Tedronai]

Rumormonger
Honest Lies
Infuriate
possibly Sex Appeal

Basically all the stunts presented in YS that provide or can provide a bonus to social attacks provide a +2 bonus to accuracy, something rather frowned upon by the stunt creation guidelines presented earlier in the same chapter.

[sinker]

Honest lies and Infuriate have further limiting factors, which is sometimes worth additional shifts. One could argue that Rumormonger is also limited by the fact that there must be justification for it to be considered an attack (I wouldn't though). Sex appeal is limited by gender/orientation?

[Jimmy]

I think I see what you're saying. I suppose that's what they mean when they call them 'guidelines' rather than rules. I rather think that Sex Appeal is the more powerful stunt as far as bang for your buck goes stuntwise, and does stretch the limits on those guidelines.

As for the original idea of social weapon grades, I'd still be more inclined to leave as is. Circumstance, whether through having the upper hand in an argument because of outside influence or otherwise, should still be used as Aspects. It just makes more sense to me. Being able to make stronger arguments would only be possible by 'doing your homework' in a debate/social conflict, which mechanically should be represented through use of assessments and declarations.

Still, this discussion has made me think more about the rules and I think thats a good thing. Cheers!

[Tedronai]

Honest lies and Infuriate have further limiting factors, which is sometimes worth additional shifts. One could argue that Rumormonger is also limited by the fact that there must be justification for it to be considered an attack (I wouldn't though). Sex appeal is limited by gender/orientation?

 
Lethal Weapon only provides its bonus against unarmored opponents.  Should it, then grant an accuracy bonus as those stunts, do?
The guidelines require all stunts providing a bonus to work only under some meaningful limiting factor.  The fact that so many of the example stunts ignore this requirement is simply another point where the two sections of the same chapter diverge.

[Sanctaphrax]

I really can't be bothered to go over the problems with the example stunts in YS again. Let this link be my contribution to the discussion.

...was this just put up as background for your thought process?

Yes. Feel free to check out the Telepathy power, it's here.

He seems to be comparing accuracy and weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio...

I am indeed.

And if I follow your rebuttal correctly, it doesn't actually counter what I said.

See, my point only stands in a very specific case. That case is a case where even with the stress boost the attack will inflict no more than 1 stress on a successful hit, and where the GM isn't handing out free Aspects for glancing blows.

In that specific case, stress and accuracy are equal. Because no attack that is converted from a miss into a hit by the accuracy boost will do anything. And stress and accuracy boosts are equal when applied to attacks that would miss with the accuracy boost or hit with the stress boost.

The thing is, that specific case is rather common in social conflicts.

I'm not saying it needs a nerf. What I'm saying is that using Weapons already has a built in advantage of the weapon rating, and adding a stunt to boost the weapon rating even further feels like stacking stunts in a way the RAW doesn't intend. It makes more sense to me to limit it to accuracy stunts, or maybe stress boosting stunts that cost a fate point to use, like Killer Blow.

But that all's got little to do with social conflict, so perhaps we're getting off topic.

Don't worry about derailing, the thread is like 80% derail anyway.

Some stunts are written under the assumption that people will not always have access to their favourite weapons. I freely admit that they push the limits of balance a little bit, but if you can't specialize in a weapon with stunts something is very wrong.

The Rules As Intended here clearly let you use stress-boosters with Weapons and Guns. The rules and the examples are in agreement, and there's nothing unbalanced about the result.

PS: Killer Blow is garbage.

[UmbraLux]

See, my point only stands in a very specific case.

What specific case are you referring to?

The thing is, that specific case is rather common in social conflicts.

I can't think of anything I'd call a 'specific case' which is also common enough to warrant rewriting rules for an entire section of combat.  Perhaps I'll understand better once you explain what this case is.

[Mr. Death]

Some stunts are written under the assumption that people will not always have access to their favourite weapons. I freely admit that they push the limits of balance a little bit, but if you can't specialize in a weapon with stunts something is very wrong.

I totally agree. I just think that stacking a stress bonus on top of the Weapon rating doesn't feel right. Weapon specialization stunts, to me, would be to boost blocking, maneuvering, and attacking.

The Rules As Intended here clearly let you use stress-boosters with Weapons and Guns. The rules and the examples are in agreement, and there's nothing unbalanced about the result.

What are some of the examples on restrictions to the stunts? It should be considerably narrower than just the type of weapon, as far as damage goes, because you're already getting a +2 or +3 for using that type of weapon.

I think I've a way to properly explain what I mean...the rules against stacking stunts (or taking a power twice) basically boil down to that you can't take two stunts that fill the same 'if/then' statement. So, by my thinking, just having a weapon means you have a certain 'if' (Using a Broadsword) paired with a certain 'then' (+2 stress on a successful hit), and subsequent stunts need to have different conditions and outcomes, i.e., you can't/shouldn't get another +2 just by fulfilling the condition "using a Broadsword."

[sinker]

What specific case are you referring to?

Ok, let me explain in it's entirety. According to the stunt creation rules, we can only gain +1 to accuracy from a stunt*. So, using only stunts the max accuracy bonus in social conflict we can achieve is +1*. The only time a +1 accuracy is useful is when 1 shift makes a difference. If we roll under -1 we miss anyway, so neither accuracy nor weapon rating is useful to us. If we roll -1 then a +1 to accuracy nets us a zero sum attack, and if the GM isn't feeling generous, a zero sum attack does nothing without weapon ratings. A -1 with only weapon rating does nothing as well. If we roll 0 then both accuracy and weapon rating increase the stress in the same way.

So in this case (where a single point of accuracy is the most you can achieve and your GM doesn't award anything for zero sum attacks) 1 point of accuracy is exactly like 1 point of stress.

*Of course this is all ignoring the fact that all of the social attack stunts in YS award a +2 accuracy bonus. Perhaps there's a reason for that.

[UmbraLux]

Ok, let me explain in it's entirety. According to the stunt creation rules, we can only gain +1 to accuracy from a stunt*. So, using only stunts the max accuracy bonus in social conflict we can achieve is +1*.

You're discussing stunt creation and Sanctaphrax is discussing a "special case" which relates accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio.  If the two of you are discussing the same thing you're doing an excellent job of obfuscation. 

The only time a +1 accuracy is useful is when 1 shift makes a difference. If we roll under -1 we miss anyway, so neither accuracy nor weapon rating is useful to us.

From my point of view, a bit more accuracy would have been extremely useful. 

If we roll -1 then a +1 to accuracy nets us a zero sum attack, and if the GM isn't feeling generous, a zero sum attack does nothing without weapon ratings. A -1 with only weapon rating does nothing as well. If we roll 0 then both accuracy and weapon rating increase the stress in the same way.

So in this case (where a single point of accuracy is the most you can achieve and your GM doesn't award anything for zero sum attacks) 1 point of accuracy is exactly like 1 point of stress.

After success?  Sure.  That's what I stated previously.
-----
Ties aren't so common the rules need* to be changed.  Particularly since aspects are already capable of breaking a tie.

Purely from an optimization point of view, the attacker is often better off maneuvering than simply spamming attacks - particularly when offense and defense are close.  I like to see more tactical choices than "I attack again."  So having a "special case" (where offense and defense are tied) which optimizes choices other than  just attacking is a Good Thing (TM). 

*Lack of need shouldn't stop you if you want to make simply spamming attacks optimal.  I simply prefer the tactical choices already allowed.