How would you handle social attacks that don't make sense?

[FishStampede]

The thing about social combat is it does require some social interaction. It requires both characters to be at least socially standing in the same ballpark. It also ends with the transition to physical, so as soon as the other guy starts punching you in the face (or trying to eat it), meaningful social interaction has broken down.

That being said, it's also not out of reason for a powerful wizard to try to reason with Cthulhu. Harry regularly barters with beings that would give the Big C at least a moment's pause. Generally it doesn't go too well for him, but he gives it the old college try. Cthulhu is a reasoning being, if entirely alien, and if he's actually talking to you there is the potential for social interaction. Of course, he could always just squish you. Do bear that in mind when you consider your tack for negotiations.

Also, in the Secret Service example, there are different ways to handle it. I haven't seen the episode, so I'm going to just make some guesses. The guy was at something of a disadvantage already. He was outnumbered and outmuscled. Thus him pushing the panic button was actually a concession of sorts. He's no longer involved in the social conflict, now the Secret Service is. By the rules, that could be considered a significant restriction on his behavior, since the scene is now Covered In Mirrorshades or something. The Secret Service isn't just going to blindly support him, they're going to protect the President's daughter.

A similar concession could work with a crime boss who no longer wants to talk to you. He concedes with My Goons Are Speaking For Me. He no longer has direct control of the situation and his less civilized thugs could easily transition to physical even if he didn't originally want that outcome. He's conceded the conflict by giving up control to another group, with an implied threat of escalation and a potential loss of face by being unable to handle the situation himself.

[UmbraLux]

No, there are certain things (especially in social combat) where rules dances shouldn't be necessary.  The book even says that you either need some sort of tender information to attack someone socially, or a supernatural power. 

You should not have to compel a player (giving him the reward of fate points) to stop him from attempting to seduce the fire truck.  It simply leads to unbridled ridiculousness and game derailment.

Huh?  What "rules dance"?  Aspects are intended to be used.

Also, none of the examples above would be handing a fate point to the player.  They're either self compels or invokes for effect.  You could, presumably, find a situation where compelling the PC makes sense but requires the PC to have a relevant aspect.

[Orladdin]

Also, none of the examples above would be handing a fate point to the player.  They're either self compels or invokes for effect.  You could, presumably, find a situation where compelling the PC makes sense but requires the PC to have a relevant aspect.

How so?

... compel an aspect.  Where the aspect is sourced doesn't matter much, it could be the character's high concept of Undercover Cop, an easy declaration of Secret Service has My Back after pushing a panic button, a presumably even easier declaration of You've got the Wrong Parts prevents seduction by the gender you're not interested in, and using I'm a Bigot is going to stop said bigot from helping the group he hates.

Personally I think the aspect should be open and the compel negotiated, but that's up to each group and how they want to operate.

If you're using compels on a player, they certainly get a fate point.  That's the definition of a compel.
I must not be understanding what you're suggesting...?

Huh?  What "rules dance"?  Aspects are intended to be used.

The rules dance of "I have the fire truck maneuver using its F-You skill to place the aspect 'Not Sexually Attracted to Humans' on itself and then invoke it for effect to ignore your asshat attempt to spoil the game for the other players."

All I'm saying is: if a player is doing something reasonable, yes, by all means, handle it mechanically.  If they are being an asshat, don't jump through hoops to stop their asshattery -- just tell them to stop being an asshat. 

"No, you cannot intimidate the gazebo," or, "No, you cannot seduce the fire truck.  Cut that shit out," are both the correct way to go.

[DFJunkie]

"No, you cannot intimidate the gazebo," or, "No, you cannot seduce the fire truck.  Cut that shit out," are both the correct way to go.

QFT

[UmbraLux]

All I'm saying is: if a player is doing something reasonable, yes, by all means, handle it mechanically.  If they are being an asshat, don't jump through hoops to stop their asshattery -- just tell them to stop being an asshat. 

I agree...I'd even go a bit further and say I prefer not to spend precious game time with people who fall in the asshat category.  I have a limited amount of time to devote to gaming after all.

That said, it wasn't really what I was talking about...

How so?  If you're using compels on a player, they certainly get a fate point.  That's the definition of a compel.
I must not be understanding what you're suggesting...?

An example may help...

Take a situation where PC Bob is attempting to seduce a beautiful young woman who happens to be a glamoured male pixie.  It's not the PC being a jerk, he's been fooled by the glamour.  While the pixie may choose to go along with some amount of flirting, it's not going to get very far...whether the issue is size, race, or gender doesn't really matter.  Mechanically, the GM may be compelling (or invoking for effect) an aspect tied to the pixie. 

It could be a self compel (by the pixie) if the group thinks such a thing is deserving of a fate point, it could be an invoke costing the pixie a fate point if the group wants everything to be paid for, or it could simply be the GM invoking/compelling a situational aspect (such as a declaration) which neither costs nor benefits any given character.  Some groups may openly state the 'male pixie' aspect and others may simply state an aspect has been invoked which prevents social damage / consumation without stating the specific aspect.  Bob does not earn a fate point in any of the above cases.

[Richard_Chilton]

Tedronai already pointed out how the rules can prevent this - compel an aspect.

That's one way to handle it.  Treating it as you would as if the player is attacking someone with Physical Immunity and isn't using the right Catch is another.

Richard

[Tedronai]

M invoking/compelling a situational aspect (such as a declaration) which neither costs nor benefits any given character.

Any instance of any aspect being compelled provides at least one FP to at least one character (unless that compel was the product of debt, in which case it erases at least one point of debt).
Any instance of any aspect being invoked costs one FP from one character.  It is not appropriate for the GM to invoke aspects using FPs from his unlimited supply rather than from those assigned to a particular character or group.

[UmbraLux]

Any instance of any aspect being compelled provides at least one FP to at least one character (unless that compel was the product of debt, in which case it erases at least one point of debt).
Any instance of any aspect being invoked costs one FP from one character.  It is not appropriate for the GM to invoke aspects using FPs from his unlimited supply rather than from those assigned to a particular character or group.

Read the sentence you quoted again.    You'll note I specified "situational aspects" such as declarations or maneuvers.  Characters will often have at least one free tag. 

Also, I think compels only give 'victims' a fate point.  Have to check that later when I have access to the books.

Edit:  It may also be worth noting I find the differences between "compel" and "invoke for effect" blurry at best.  Personally think they could have added clarity by using fewer terms when discussing aspects.

[Orladdin]

I agree...I'd even go a bit further and say I prefer not to spend precious game time with people who fall in the asshat category.  I have a limited amount of time to devote to gaming after all.

Indeed.  If I ever write an RPG, I'm including a chapter on social contract.  Most gaming groups post-high-school prune these people out gradually by ceasing the extension of invitations.  I know mine did.

Any instance of any aspect being compelled provides at least one FP to at least one character (unless that compel was the product of debt, in which case it erases at least one point of debt).
Any instance of any aspect being invoked costs one FP from one character.  It is not appropriate for the GM to invoke aspects using FPs from his unlimited supply rather than from those assigned to a particular character or group.

See, this is what I was hung up on-- until I remembered that the free tags/invokes from declarations don't provide fate points and the book isn't clear on how they work.  I get what's going on here now.

Read the sentence you quoted again.    You'll note I specified "situational aspects" such as declarations or maneuvers.  Characters will often have at least one free tag. 

Also, I think compels only give 'victims' a fate point.  Have to check that later when I have access to the books.

You're saying that a declaration of "Not Into Dudes" is a trivial one (not requiring a skill roll) and can be invoked for effect to deny the PC the ability to seduce the fairy lord.  I get'cha.  That makes sense, and I can see not giving the PCs FP for this, unless it unhinges their brilliant plan / complicates their lives.  In which case, it should.

Edit:  It may also be worth noting I find the differences between "compel" and "invoke for effect" blurry at best.  Personally think they could have added clarity by using fewer terms when discussing aspects.

Yes, Fred's even spoken on this at later times.  The official stance now, I believe, is that if you Invoke for Effect, you pay your FP (or your free tag) to the GM.  The GM then Compels anyone who might be affected by your effect.

For example, I would spend my FP and tag "The Building is On Fire and It Isn't My Fault!" for effect, suggesting that the building has been on fire for a number of exchanges now, and the ceiling is about to collapse. 
If the GM accepts my tag, (s)he takes my FP and then offers a compel to each character likely to be crushed by the collapsing roof.  They can each individually accept/buy-out.

I've been running it this way, and it works much smoother.  The math makes a lot more sense.

[Tedronai]

Read the sentence you quoted again.    You'll note I specified "situational aspects" such as declarations or maneuvers.  Characters will often have at least one free tag. 

Also, I think compels only give 'victims' a fate point.  Have to check that later when I have access to the books.

Wherein 'free tag' is a stand-in for a virtual FP, even the expenditure of a free tag can be viewed as costing the player a FP.

Wherein a compel 'victimizes' all characters that it directly negatively affects, it compensates only such 'victims'

[Silverblaze]

I am reminded of an interesting creature in an RPG I play on occasion.

Changeling: The Dreaming - an old world of darkness supplement for Fae.

Redcaps could intimidate inanimate objects as a Birthright (power unique to them).

 It was often used to scare a car into starting or a gun into jamming.

I could see using social rolls on machines or other inanimates if you had an appropriate power to do it.  Such a thing would be very easy since such things would have no social skills.

I could see a power like cyberpathy or techpathy working on computers etc.

This is pretty much the only way I see such nonsense working.  Even then it feels rather nonsensical.

[pokken]

In my opinion, in this type of situation, there is still a social conflict going on. What changes are the achievable goals.

For instance, Bob is trying to seduce a glamoured male pixie in chick form. Bob's social goal is to bang the hot chick. Unfortunately, that's not achievable. What is achievable however, are the social consequences associated with the male pixie giving up his identity or being forced to awkwardly go along with the seduction, or being embarrassed, or whatever. He takes social stress from Bob's sexy words if he fails defenses; his consequences are different, instead of "wants to bang Bob" as one of his consequences, he gets "Totally flustered," or "Some barflies know who I am." Or whatever. Similarly, the pixie could plausibly just concede early on and cough up a moderate of "Outmaneuvered in front of his mates."

At least, that's my take; there's almost always some good way of representing social stress and consequences when people are meaningfully interacting, even if they aren't for what the player is trying to accomplish.

With the West Wing example--how soon is the Secret Service going to get there? These guys could really screw me up. Hell, they might find me and come kick my ass later. That's terrifying. Is someone video taping me looking like a chump? Is it going to get posted on the internet? Did copping out and calling the popo make me look bad in front of my lady?

If your character has no fear at all of the consequences of a social situation he'd better have the skills and aspects to back it up. There should be no "but my character's too badass to have hurt feelings." If you don't want your feelings hurt, buy a bunch of presence or empathy and get some supporting aspects and stunts.

[Orladdin]

In my opinion, in this type of situation, there is still a social conflict going on. What changes are the achievable goals.

For instance, Bob is trying to seduce a glamoured male pixie in chick form. Bob's social goal is to bang the hot chick. Unfortunately, that's not achievable. What is achievable however, are the social consequences associated with the male pixie giving up his identity or being forced to awkwardly go along with the seduction, or being embarrassed, or whatever. He takes social stress from Bob's sexy words if he fails defenses; his consequences are different, instead of "wants to bang Bob" as one of his consequences, he gets "Totally flustered," or "Some barflies know who I am." Or whatever. Similarly, the pixie could plausibly just concede early on and cough up a moderate of "Outmaneuvered in front of his mates."

At least, that's my take; there's almost always some good way of representing social stress and consequences when people are meaningfully interacting, even if they aren't for what the player is trying to accomplish.

With the West Wing example--how soon is the Secret Service going to get there? These guys could really screw me up. Hell, they might find me and come kick my ass later. That's terrifying. Is someone video taping me looking like a chump? Is it going to get posted on the internet? Did copping out and calling the popo make me look bad in front of my lady?

If your character has no fear at all of the consequences of a social situation he'd better have the skills and aspects to back it up. There should be no "but my character's too badass to have hurt feelings." If you don't want your feelings hurt, buy a bunch of presence or empathy and get some supporting aspects and stunts.

Wow, I hadn't even considered this course of action.  Well done.  This is a great example of the FATE system's flexibilitiy in representing narrative situations. 
In Pokken's game, such a course of action was meaningful narratively and could lead to new and interesting stories.  Awesome.

[GryMor]

For almost every case stated, it's mechanically a diff -4 assessment and invoke for effect (something so obvious that it's not a permanent aspect). Functionally it's a simple 'inapplicable' that should be mentioned to the player before they expend any fate points/tags/consequences/etc on the effort (though they still lose the characters action). Sometimes this will result in a compel and fate point for one of the actors, sometimes it's just a "your action has doesn't make sense", sometimes it's going to be a simple +2 on the resistance. For the pixie example, I'd expect it to be all of the above: Several aspects that would otherwise be helpful are actually useful for the defender or just inapplicable, there are several trivially (for the pixie) assessable aspects to help resist and there may be a compel on the seducer restricting what 'success' can actually mean.