Social Combat During Physical Combat

[toturi]

The problem is that social attacks disregard physical defences entirely.

So a social attack in a physical fight can be like an infallibly-accurate instant-death beam.

And vice versa. Physical attacks also disregard social defenses. Or for the matter, mental attacks disregards social and physical defenses.

I'd say that Lynn Min-Mei's performance of "Do you remember love" is one good example of social attacks being insta-death beams. If, as a culture, you've got no social defenses, you suck diseased moose wang.

"Protoculture...!"

[Wordmaker]

Social attacks do ignore physical defence, but as Taran and toturi said, each form of attack ignores the defences of the others. It's up to each group to decide when a social attack would be possible, and what the consequences of being taken out would be. Social conflict isn't as cut and dry as physical.

[Sanctaphrax]

Social attacks do ignore physical defence, but as Taran and toturi said, each form of attack ignores the defences of the others. It's up to each group to decide when a social attack would be possible, and what the consequences of being taken out would be. Social conflict isn't as cut and dry as physical.

Hm.

This is phrased as if it was a rebuttal of some sort, but...so far as I can tell it's just a bunch of obvious statements.

I realize this isn't the most polite thing to ask, but I'm honestly kind of puzzled; what's your point?

[Wordmaker]

That you can't outright discount social attacks in physical conflict just because they circumvent physical defence, any more than you can say that it's not fair to punch someone in the middle of a social conflict.

You have to take each scene on its own merits to judge whether an Intimidate attack or Rapport would make sense. In some cases, intimidating an opponent into standing down in the middle of a fight will make sense. In others, it won't.

[Sanctaphrax]

Oh, okay.

I'm not saying it's always a bad idea to allow a social attack in a physical fight.

But it's not something you should do casually. There are problems with social attacks in physical fights that need to be taken seriously.

Physical attacks in social conflicts don't really have the same issues, since you can't win an argument by killing the guy you're arguing with. But you can win a fight by scaring the guy you're fighting into submission.

[Wordmaker]

I dunno, if I killed a guy who was arguing with me, I'd call that a win 

Of course, that leads into one of the ways I like to adjudicate a taken out or concession result in social combat, which is that sometimes you're not trying to change your opponent's mind or convince them of anything, but rather, it's the people watching that you're trying to sway.

So if you have a super-powerful villain fighting the PCs, and you don't want that character to be cowed by a physically weak social character with a good Intimidate or Rapport skill, just concede and say that the villain's lesser minions quit the field. The villain has still lost the social conflict, but the fight itself still has to be fought.

[cold_breaker]

So, two things -

First, lets forget about physical fights for a moment. How about combining social and mental - seems oddly appropriate in some circumstances to have a social conflict during a mental conflict - say, arguing over a chess game? A mental conflict is not the same as a social conflict, but social manoeuvres seem oddly appropriate for a mental conflict.

Also, I don't think the rules explicitly state how long a round is. I always considered it arbitrary to the conflict. If you're having a footrace, a round might be a different chunk of time than a boxing match. I always considered the length of time a round took to be up to the narrator to decide what's appropriate. You do have to keep it the same for any given conflict - can't say one round is 6 seconds and the next is 10 minutes, but you can say a round in a wrestling match is different from a knife fight. The point is I wouldn't discount social attacks based exclusively on the length of time a physical fight takes as it's all relative. That said, do use reason when a player suggests an attack that would take much longer than an exchange to pull off.

[Wordmaker]

Absolutely. I love that DFRPG keeps round length fluid and adaptable. A social combat round could be as long as 5 minutes for a debate, or as short as few seconds for an intimidating glare.

[Mr. Death]

Thing is, though, mental conflict needs more justification than social conflict does--unless you're using some kind of mind powers, you can only do mental stress if you have something seriously personal on the target.

[cold_breaker]

Thing is, though, mental conflict needs more justification than social conflict does--unless you're using some kind of mind powers, you can only do mental stress if you have something seriously personal on the target.

Yes, and no. There are plenty of ways to have a battle of the minds - a chess game, a hacking competition, etc. They're rare, and theoretically someone would concede a game of checkers before taking any consequences, but mental conflicts exist. Not every mental conflict needs to be a psychic showdown between psionics

[Mr. Death]

A battle of wits is not the same thing as mental conflict. A mental conflict is something that's going to affect the characters mentally--something that has a risk of damaging or otherwise affecting their psyche. It's not just any conflict in which you use your brain.

[cold_breaker]

The worst case scenario in a physical conflict is death (or being uncouncious) - that doesn't mean an arm wrestling match isn't a physical conflict.

The worst case scenario in a social conflict is typically social alienation - that doesn't mean a mild debate isn't a social conflict.

The worst case scenario in a mental conflict is madness - that doesn't mean a game of wits isn't a mental conflict.

Think outside the box a little bit. All conflicts fall into one of these three categories - it's generally just a matter of who concedes first.

[Mr. Death]

The worst case scenario in a mental conflict is madness - that doesn't mean a game of wits isn't a mental conflict.

A game of wits isn't a mental conflict if there's no real chance of it causing madness or any mental consequence. There's no way that a game of checkers would ever cause someone madness--not unless the players had something seriously personal at stake.

Read the description of mental conflicts in the rulebook--it outright says that it's going to be rare and harder to justify because of the potential seriousness of the consequences. A simple game of skill is not going to be anywhere near appropriate justification for mental consequences.

Despite the name of the track, "mental" conflict does not mean "anything where you're using your brain."

[Wordmaker]

To be fair, the book does strongly suggest, if not outright state, that mental conflicts are one-sided, with the attacker applying some form of supernatural coercion on the victim's mind, and the defender can only try to resist.

[cold_breaker]

I'd say mental conflicts are rarer - even if you include things like playing chess. Not that I'd ever bother using the rules unless there was something major at stake. But I'm sure you could give yourself a headache or seriously shake your confidence in a particularly intense game of chess - both of which I'd consider mild mental consequences.

Saying it's not a mental conflict unless you stand a serious chance of scrambling your brian is like saying it's not a physical contest unless there's a good chance of being impaled on a spike - most people would stop short of any major consequence, but that doesn't mean it's not still a conflict.

Edit: to reply to Wordmaker: The book is getting into common major conflicts in Dresden files - I don't disagree with the statement that MOST mental conflicts are one sided - usually this is about supernatural creatures using their powers in a way regular humans can't.