A House Rule For Social Combat

[Sanctaphrax]

@everyone: The limits of a social take-out are very vague. Can you make someone convert to your religion? At some point you enter the realm of mental effects, but it's not clear where.

I'd be up for changing the boundaries between mental and social conflict too, but some skills would need to be rewritten as a result.

Amusingly enough, this houserule would not be changed much at all. It would just apply to mental conflicts.

@sinker: Not always. Getting any kind of success out of an unreasonable social attack should be harder than doing the same with a reasonable one.

@Ophidimancer: First part is very valid, I have no counterpoint except to say that I don't find this sort of thing very hard. Maybe it's a playstyle issue.

Second bit I disagree with. Making something harder and harder until it becomes impossible is in my opinion the ideal way to set limits in fuzzy situations like this one.

PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...

[Jimmy]

PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...

I dunno, nothing gets your point across like a shotgun blast to the guts...

[Sanctaphrax]

...I don't follow.

Are you suggesting that I shoot people?

[sinker]

@sinker: Not always. Getting any kind of success out of an unreasonable social attack should be harder than doing the same with a reasonable one.

....

PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...

Ahh, I understand now. I don't see how adding an arbitrary weapon rating makes accuracy more important than weapon rating though.

[Sanctaphrax]

Suppose I attack, and miss by one. If I have +1 accuracy, I get my weapon rating minus the target's armour in stress.

If I miss by more than one, neither +1 accuracy or +1 weapon rating does anything.

If I hit, both +1 accuracy and +1 weapon rating provide an extra point of stress.

So accuracy and weapon rating are equal in value unless you already have a weapon rating that exceeds the target's armour.

(Unless your GM in his infinite mercy gives you perks when you barely hit someone.)

So by assigning actual weapon values to social attacks, one can make social accuracy better than social damage.

[Tedronai]

The above can be accomplished solely by applying the combat-stunt guidelines equally to social combat stunts.

[UmbraLux]

Suppose I attack, and miss by one. If I have +1 accuracy, I get my weapon rating minus the target's armour in stress.

If I miss by more than one, neither +1 accuracy or +1 weapon rating does anything.

If I hit, both +1 accuracy and +1 weapon rating provide an extra point of stress.

So accuracy and weapon rating are equal in value unless you already have a weapon rating that exceeds the target's armour.

(Unless your GM in his infinite mercy gives you perks when you barely hit someone.)

So by assigning actual weapon values to social attacks, one can make social accuracy better than social damage.

That's a convoluted bit of reasoning...which jumps to an unwarranted (and wrong) conclusion.

Since you're measuring importance by stress, it's trivial to show accuracy is most important when you have no weapon.  (All stress dealt stems from accuracy.)  The larger you make the weapon rating, the less accuracy matters (unless you add the possibility of friendly fire) until you get to the point where the weapon rating is so large reducing accuracy to make it a zone attack (if possible) makes sense.

Besides, as long as FATE turns excess accuracy into damage at a 1:1 ratio accuracy will always be better than weapon rating - simply because it can be both.

[sinker]

Ok, now I think I see exactly where you're coming from. You're looking at stunts aren't you? At the value difference between +1 Accuracy and +2 Stress? Cause I somewhat agree with you there (though not enough to really try to fix it). If you aren't then it's still a valid point in your favor.

If you're just saying that a weapon value increases the usefulness of zero sum attacks then I'd agree, but then I'm not really worried about it. Either your GM says nothing happens when you roll a zero sum attack, (in which case it's not enough to hit, roll better next time) or they're nice and allow you to turn your attack into a maneuver (giving you a fragile aspect).

[Sanctaphrax]

You're looking at stunts aren't you? At the value difference between +1 Accuracy and +2 Stress?

Yes.

If your attack has no weapon rating, then +1 stress and +1 accuracy are the same barring GM intervention. (As is +2 accuracy and +1 accuracy +1 stress. And so on.) Once you have a weapon rating, accuracy starts being better.

UmbraLux, I don't follow your reasoning at all.

[Ophidimancer]

I think I see both points of view.

On the one hand, each point of Weapon rating gives you more Stress bang for your Accuracy buck.

On the other hand, points of Weapon rating don't make you any more likely to land a hit, so trading Accuracy for Weapon can give sharply diminishing returns.

[Mr. Death]

Honestly, a part of me thinks Social conflict is better without any weapon ratings. To me, the whole Social conflict thing seems like it's supposed to be "softer" than Mental or Physical conflict. Like, a social consequence that lasts months and years at a time really isn't supposed to be something that comes normally.

Part of this goes back to my feeling that social combat and the possibility of filling all your consequences with social stuff and making yourself a sitting duck in combat is way off. Part of it is that Social consequences seem much more transient in nature than physical or mental stuff, things that literally and tangibly change you and who you are.

[eri]

Honestly, a part of me thinks Social conflict is better without any weapon ratings. To me, the whole Social conflict thing seems like it's supposed to be "softer" than Mental or Physical conflict. Like, a social consequence that lasts months and years at a time really isn't supposed to be something that comes normally.

Part of this goes back to my feeling that social combat and the possibility of filling all your consequences with social stuff and making yourself a sitting duck in combat is way off. Part of it is that Social consequences seem much more transient in nature than physical or mental stuff, things that literally and tangibly change you and who you are.

Really? You don't think it would last as long?  How about, a bad breakup that ends in the ex badmouthing you to all your mutual friends for months, or someone being accused of paedophilia and losing their teaching job and their reputation and in some cases even their rights for years. Wouldn't those be social consequences? You may be the same old stand-up guy you've always been, but if everyone views you in a different light, that's going to affect you. Right? Unless you have no social antennas you're going to notice if no-one wants to go on a second date with you cause your ex has been dishing the dirt. Or worse, if the Moms in the neighbourhood are keeping the kids away from you and looking at you like a threat.

I don't really have a point of view on the rest of the discussion, but that just struck me as wrong.

[Mr. Death]

Really? You don't think it would last as long?  How about, a bad breakup that ends in the ex badmouthing you to all your mutual friends for months, or someone being accused of paedophilia and losing their teaching job and their reputation and in some cases even their rights for years. Wouldn't those be social consequences?

Yes. Those would be ones that don't "come normally." Those are pretty extreme things, the result of constant, consistent efforts over a considerable amount of time--i.e., numerous maneuvers adding up to one massive "attack" that overwhelms your "defense" and has to be weathered with a consequence.

I'm not saying that Severe or Extreme social consequences shouldn't and don't happen. I'm saying that maybe it's appropriate that they're that much more difficult to inflict, i.e., no RAW Social Weapon ratings (that I recall, anyway).

[Tedronai]

I'm not saying that Severe or Extreme social consequences shouldn't and don't happen. I'm saying that maybe it's appropriate that they're that much more difficult to inflict, i.e., no RAW Social Weapon ratings (that I recall, anyway).

What is available in the RAW for social attacks are accuracy boosts (in the form of stunts) of magnitudes normally reserved for weapon ratings.  And as we all know, when choosing between accuracy and weapon rating boosts in equal measure, accuracy is always superior.

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, but stunts don't stack, so in the absence of social 'weapons' (and social stress stunts), you're only going to get boosts to accuracy, rather than both accuracy and weapon ratings like you do in physical or mental stunts. (And honestly I'm iffy on the whole notion of stress-adding stunts for Weapons in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.)