Social Combat During Physical Combat

[cold_breaker]

I can't see a social master intimidating the heck out of a beast to be honest. Not without a lot of maneuvers to tag anyways. The fact is that social attacks in a physical conflict are always going to be less desirable to physical attacks - except maybe in very rare circumstances. Gotta remember, the attacks need to have a plausible explanation to them. You can't just say 'I attack him socially!' - you need to come up with a way to do so. Intimidation, posturing, etc. For instance, social attacks on Sue the Dinosaur would be neigh impossible as ... well? Sue isn't capable of understanding most social attacks. I might deal with this as an auto concession in these cases: They take a minor consequence of 'oblivious' (or distracted) and concede from the social combat without conceding from the physical combat.

Also, I consider social attacks to require acquaintances around to be effective. After all, the bully doesn't have much ability to embarrass you in the school yard if no ones around to watch, right? Losing a social conflict typically means losing the respect of those around you.

I'd also say the consequences of a mental defeat or a social defeat would be much different from a physical defeat.

Also, I wasn't aware that there's only one set of consequences... I'm not sure I like this. I may house rule this though... I understand that a social consequence could be used against you in a physical fight, but in my mind you should be able to take minor social and physical consequences in the same  scene... or even major ones. Again, this is because losing a social conflict has different (and often less damaging) consequences than a physical conflict.

By the way, just for reference, I'm going at this to try and make my combats as realistic as possible. I like to ask my players what they want to do and then figure out how to do that within the fate rules (effectively if possible), as opposed to asking my players what fate rules they'd like to exploit. In my mind everyone should have something they can do in every conflict - whether it's the bruiser helping in social conflicts by being intimidating, the talker helping in physical conflicts be being distracting, or whatever equivalent mental conflict version. Sure, everyone will have their preferred roles, but I like the way fate works in that there should never be a time when someone sits in the corner while another player 'shines.' Fate works best when people work intelligently together to solve a problem.

[Wordmaker]

I couldn't agree more. My favourite thing about FATE is how it encourages, and even requires, teamwork to reach its full potential as a system.

Definitely any form of social interaction must be restricted by the circumstances, just like physical attacks. It's up to each group to agree whether the scrawny med-tech winds up spluttering and stammering like Waldo Butters, or can pull off a level of surprising intellectual menace to rival The Doctor. 

[Taran]

I don't really see why you can't have mutliple forms of combat going on simultaneously.

You frame the combat, declare which kind of conflict it will be and who the teams are.

Let's say you have 2 groups facing off.

The wizard says, I'm engaging their wizard in mental combat...but since It doesn't make me immune to physical attacks, I'm also in the physical combat.

The "bard" says, I'm going to convince their leader it's a hopeless fight.

So everyone is in physical combat and rolls initiative.
The wizards roll their mental initiative as well as physical
The Bard and the leader roll their social and physical initiative.

The mental entire conflict(consisting of multiple exchanges) might get resolved within one or two exchanges of physical combat.

Meanwhile, for each exchange of the social conflict, 3 rounds of physical combat are taking place.

It's more complicated, but it definitely has a depth - and to me - makes sense.

[Mr. Death]

That sounds untenably more complicated. Running more than one different type of conflict at a time, with different initiatives, I just don't see working at all.

And honestly? Once punches are being thrown, people aren't talking any more. A fight just doesn't work that way.

[Taran]

Yeah, I never tried it myself but it would make for a neat experiment to have a layered combat like that...

[Wordmaker]

Given that Spirit of the Century doesn't differentiate between different kinds of stress (everyone just has a single 5-box stress track), I don't see any problem with using social attacks in physical combat. I'm not sure I'd personally layer it with different rolls for initiative, but I can see the appeal to the idea.

[cold_breaker]

That sounds untenably more complicated. Running more than one different type of conflict at a time, with different initiatives, I just don't see working at all.

And honestly? Once punches are being thrown, people aren't talking any more. A fight just doesn't work that way.

In reality? No... in comic books and most fiction is another story. Remember, the system is designed to tell a story, not emulate reality perfectly. Sometimes reality gets in the way of the plotline, and you need to bend physics a little to make life more interesting...

[Mr. Death]

I just don't see it working. The overall turn order would get confusing fast--especially if certain conflicts are taking place at a different pace than others at the same time.

For the given example, it's much easier to just make the mental conflict a consequential contest. That way, the rest of the table isn't sitting there as one player goes back and forth with a baddie for who knows how many turns.

In reality? No... in comic books and most fiction is another story. Remember, the system is designed to tell a story, not emulate reality perfectly. Sometimes reality gets in the way of the plotline, and you need to bend physics a little to make life more interesting...

Let me turn that around on you.

If the purpose is story, and the real aim of the players is social conflict, don't run a physical conflict at all.

Yes, the characters are grappling and throwing punches--but if the real purpose of the scene is for them to come to an understanding, then the punches and grapples are just flavor. Just run it as a straight social conflict. That's kind of how I see, for example, a fight between two superheroes--it's more about the conversation they're having, the flips punches and eyebeams are just window dressing.

[Wordmaker]

You know, he's not wrong. That's a really nice idea.

[cold_breaker]

For the given example, it's much easier to just make the mental conflict a consequential contest. That way, the rest of the table isn't sitting there as one player goes back and forth with a baddie for who knows how many turns.
Let me turn that around on you.

If the purpose is story, and the real aim of the players is social conflict, don't run a physical conflict at all.

Yes, the characters are grappling and throwing punches--but if the real purpose of the scene is for them to come to an understanding, then the punches and grapples are just flavor. Just run it as a straight social conflict. That's kind of how I see, for example, a fight between two superheroes--it's more about the conversation they're having, the flips punches and eyebeams are just window dressing.

OK, let me qualify my comments a little then. It's a storytelling game. I don't think most players would enjoy a game without use of the combat rules. :p

Again, in this case I think it's just about letting the players do whatever's most enjoyably while still being balanced. I don't think there's anything unbalanced, or - in the context of the story - unrealistic, about allowing social attacks instead of physical attacks in a physical combat. I'll qualify that by saying the player would have to justify it within the fight - obviously explaining complex political intrigue would not be possible, but certainly intimidation and direct attempts to convince the enemy to back off are not out of the realm of possibility. In real life, people don't turn into brainless zombies as soon as they start fighting after all.

[Mr. Death]

OK, let me qualify my comments a little then. It's a storytelling game. I don't think most players would enjoy a game without use of the combat rules. :p

Again, in this case I think it's just about letting the players do whatever's most enjoyably while still being balanced. I don't think there's anything unbalanced, or - in the context of the story - unrealistic, about allowing social attacks instead of physical attacks in a physical combat. I'll qualify that by saying the player would have to justify it within the fight - obviously explaining complex political intrigue would not be possible, but certainly intimidation and direct attempts to convince the enemy to back off are not out of the realm of possibility. In real life, people don't turn into brainless zombies as soon as they start fighting after all.

Actually, you'd be surprised what adrenaline does to people. A fight can make people lose all rationality--they may not turn into zombies, but someone who's pissed off enough to start swinging at you probably isn't going to care much about what you're saying right at that moment.

[cold_breaker]

Actually, you'd be surprised what adrenaline does to people. A fight can make people lose all rationality--they may not turn into zombies, but someone who's pissed off enough to start swinging at you probably isn't going to care much about what you're saying right at that moment.

There's usually more to it than just adrenalin though: perhaps the reason for the fight? Regardless, from a narrative perspective, it's no fun if the characters turn into brainless zombies every time they get into a scrap - whether we're talking about pen and paper games or writing a book.

[OwleIsohos]

Actually, you'd be surprised what adrenaline does to people. A fight can make people lose all rationality--they may not turn into zombies, but someone who's pissed off enough to start swinging at you probably isn't going to care much about what you're saying right at that moment.

I agree with this.  My personal interpretation, though, is that there's more to social attacks than just what you're saying - it's also about your body language and personal presence.   An Intimidation roll could easily be about looming over someone, making a sudden, threatening motion, or otherwise acting in a way that makes your opponent react as though you're a credible threat.  An opponent hopped up on adrenaline will still respond to those kinds of signals - it's communication on a more basic level.

In the end, it really comes down to GM discretion and what makes sense in the situation.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't really see why you can't have mutliple forms of combat going on simultaneously.

You frame the combat, declare which kind of conflict it will be and who the teams are.

Let's say you have 2 groups facing off.

The wizard says, I'm engaging their wizard in mental combat...but since It doesn't make me immune to physical attacks, I'm also in the physical combat.

The "bard" says, I'm going to convince their leader it's a hopeless fight.

So everyone is in physical combat and rolls initiative.
The wizards roll their mental initiative as well as physical
The Bard and the leader roll their social and physical initiative.

The mental entire conflict(consisting of multiple exchanges) might get resolved within one or two exchanges of physical combat.

Meanwhile, for each exchange of the social conflict, 3 rounds of physical combat are taking place.

It's more complicated, but it definitely has a depth - and to me - makes sense.

Initiative isn't rolled. Not by default.

Would acting in the physical conflict prevent you from acting in the mental/social conflicts?

Given that Spirit of the Century doesn't differentiate between different kinds of stress (everyone just has a single 5-box stress track), I don't see any problem with using social attacks in physical combat.

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.

[Taran]

Would acting in the physical conflict prevent you from acting in the mental/social conflicts?

Well, I figure you'd have to be in both.  People aren't going to not try to attack you just because you're shooting your mouth off at someone.  There'd probably be good justification for declarations like "distracted" and what-not.

The mental combat might preclude you from other combats, making you an easy target...but that's just how I imagine it, not really how it would have to be.

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.

I guess mental attacks do as well.

The thing about a social conflict, though, is I see exchanges taking way longer.  So each attack would only occure every so many rounds.

Social attacks don't have weapon values which kind of balance it as well.

Like I said, I've never tried it.  I'm curious how it would work, though. It might be like Mr. Death said: be too much bookeeping.