When to use Social Conflicts

[Mr. Death]

So, I'm starting up a new game with some folks, and while my previous groups were freeform roleplayers who were totally fine with eschewing social conflict entirely, my new group wants to include them (one has Rapport as her highest skill, and plans to have a stunt boosting it), so I feel like I need some advice.

Mainly, my issue is when and why it's appropriate to use them. Mainly, things like, should the PCs be able to have social conflict and succeed against things that would not consider them anywhere near social peers. Things like the Red or Black Court vampires and ghouls ("Why would I listen to what my food has to say?"), or powerful fae and other monsters (why on earth Our World gave Shellycobs a social armor stunt is beyond me).

So I guess the other issue is what is an appropriate scope for taking out someone socially. The only two social conflicts I've run have been about talking someone up for information.

So...halp.

[narphoenix]

I'd use it primarily for negotiations and investigations. There are times when vampires would /have/ to treat you like an equal, like if you're a member of an Accorded Nation, and you could use that to negotiate. Turn others to your side, force your opponents to cop to your demands if they don't want to look bad (which may have fatal results in the supernatural world), things of that nature.

[Taran]

I'd allow social maneuvers(but not full combat) in physical combat for your player with high rapport.  Like boosting teammates morale or goading enemies - although, the latter is probably more the realm of intimidate...and distracting is more the realm of deceit.  At least they're semi-useful in more situations.

I was always under the impression that social combat was the default for fae creatures.  That they'd prefer to get you into their debt than actually attack you.  Presence and ones reputation should factor in with creatures like vampires and fay especially if the characters are tied to powerful groups - like the White Council, etc...

Thinks like trolls and ghouls aren't likely going to be influenced by being nice to them or chatting with them.  I could see tricking them (a la billy goats gruff story) - but that's probably deceit more than rapport. 

Bargaining with ghouls could work...or delay tactics.

I think the important thing is to decide: how is this conflict going to be decided and what is the Goal of the conflict. Is there only one way to convince the troll to let you pass?  If the troll is open to being persuaded, then let a social conflict happen but if you don't see it happening, I wouldn't force it.  Maybe the intention is to kill the troll, but the social combat is about how much information you glean before it gets killed.  In this case, let the social combat unfold and maybe it leads into a fight.  Maybe the fight isn't even important so you just hand-wave the physical conflict.

Don't know if that's helpful.

[devonapple]

There are three levels for a Social challenge:

• Overcome - roll to overcome the Social difficulty of a low-level threat, usually to bypass a minor challenge or to reward creativity, but you still want some chance of failure and consequence. Talking your way past a mook, bluffing an office worker, or getting a quick tip from a reluctant street informant.
• Contest - two characters roll competing social skills because there's a greater chance of failure and further complication, but the interaction doesn't merit a whole scene. Maybe use this to wheedle information out of competent/skilled but not fanatically motivated opposition. Good option for a social event during which the PCs want to chase down numerous bits of information or secure temporary alliances. Still important, but not enough to deal Stress or Consequences to anyone.
• Conflict - this is where Stress gets involved: a high-stakes negotiation, interrogation, argument or shouting match. Someone is getting what they want in this scene, and it is very important. Someone is getting Taken Out or Conceding. People might lose face, friends, allies, emotional control, etc. Someone may even get Consequences.

In addition to the regular social challenge, you can have a "political/cultural/societal" Conflict in which the players are operating on a greater scale to create or mitigate social pressures, public policy, etc. Smear campaigns, backroom alliances, etc. can all work to someone's advantage. Although there aren't a lot of rules about expanding the scope of social challenges this way, I think it is at least mentioned that Social Stress/Consequences can take longer to go away depending on the scale (Fate Fractal/Bronze Rule) of the conflict. So, suffering Social consequences at a party is one thing, but suffering Social consequences at a big society ball with media coverage and a lot of movers/shakers is quite another. This is also something one would use for political campaigns. But it is not well-codified, so you are free to handle it however you think best.

[Taran]

@ devonapple:
+1

@Mr. Death:
Something I wanted to mention but forgot...and it might have been you who gave me this advice before.  You could have a social conflict framed as a physical conflict.

So narratively, people are trading blows but since the actual goal is to gain information, for instance, it's actually a social conflict.

There's a conversation happening as people are trading blows.  The Fighter-types can do combat-type maneuvers to help influence the actual social combat.  Victory isn't when the enemy dies but when he gives up the information the party's been looking for.

So, in this way, the vampire who wouldn't bargain with its 'food' might inadvertently give the PC's something they want.

[Blk4ce]

I believe social skills can be used in a physical fight in an effective way. Of course it depends on the situation. Lower level black court is naturally incapable of conversation, but a red or white is perfectly doable, as long as they haven't depleted their feeding reserves.

So you can use intimidation to obviously frighten your enemy or to enrage him, deceit to distract and feint your opponent, rapport to goad, bait, insult, sow discord between enemies, plant guilt, infuriate, throw a torrent of words to monopolize attention and leave everyone stunned and dumbfounded with how bizzare it seems (yeah, that character with Rapport is awesome).

EDIT: I actually found a mention in the book that you can use Intimidation to inflict mental stress in a physical conflict. So, if you phrase your words correctly, you can also use rapport and deceit to demoralise sentient opponents.

[UmbraLux]

So I guess the other issue is what is an appropriate scope for taking out someone socially. The only two social conflicts I've run have been about talking someone up for information.

Devonapple covers the book's categorizations of social conflict.  The one item I'd add is set your stakes.  Think of it as a bet...this is what I'm trying to get and this is what I'm willing to risk. 

Doing so helps explain why you may not get much from a "high status" opponent, they have little reason to risk much.  It also helps you tailor any consequences to fit.

[Sanctaphrax]

A social conflict (or a simple roll) is appropriate whenever someone has, and wants to use, social leverage. Some examples from my own games:

-A White Court Vampire PC tries to bribe a newspaper editor.
-A sorcerer attacks the PCs, and then tries to trick them into letting him go when the fight doesn't go his way. The PCs, in turn, try to browbeat him into paying reparations for his aggression.
-An alchemist PC tries to convince a demon lord to leave him (and other people) alone so that the alchemist can work against their mutual enemy Nicodemus.
-The PCs and their allies try to convince a fire giant prince to help protect their city, promising him revenge against the people who attacked his domain a little bit earlier.

In my experience, the best social conflicts are the ones where both sides are trying to convince each other. In more one-sided encounters, you're better off not breaking out the full conflict rules.

Kind of obvious in retrospect, but it took me a while to realize.

[Haru]

Well, the scope of social conflict is pretty much what you want it to be, or rather what your group agrees upon. You could kill someone by talking him into suicide, for example. Or make them waste time when they are standing on the railway tracks until the train comes.

Outside the typical civilized discussion type of social conflicts, I like to use them in physical situations, where the physical part is for some reason not suitable. I have 2 of those scenes right now.
The first is a scene between two opponents in different weight classes. Like whale vs. flee different. A physical conflict just wouldn't make sense here, so we agreed on how the character would get away, and we only played for some information.
The second is a situation with a hostage in the room. The character in question is also handcuffed (or at least he's supposed to, he glamored his way out of that one), so he wouldn't be able to do anything. And the other guy has a gun, which the character has not. The social conflict in this case is a way to catch the opponent off guard, to make him feel safe and then strike when he is not looking.

Another way I used a social conflict was when the players were talking someone out of blowing up a church. Hitting each other simply wasn't an option, the NPC was on the trigger. The only way to go was to talk, and it worked rather nicely.

Yet another way, I think social conflicts can be used rather nicely, is in a sort of pre-battle snark-off. The opponents smack-talk each other, and the winner of this social conflict goes into battle with a slight advantage. He's calm and prepared, while the loser is enraged and handles thoughtless.

[Silverblaze]

"Yet another way, I think social conflicts can be used rather nicely, is in a sort of pre-battle snark-off. The opponents smack-talk each other, and the winner of this social conflict goes into battle with a slight advantage. He's calm and prepared, while the loser is enraged and handles thoughtless."


I like this, but I don't like this. It is a double edged sword.

It makes sense, but I prefer to have them as maneuvers rather than consequences.  There is onl;y one consequence track.  If you have a good group.  1 socialite. 1 mentalist or intimidator. 1 combat monkey.  The opponent has little chance.  Yeah that's good tactics, but can make for a game with few challenges other than the Storyteller...trying to keep up with his PC's.

[Haru]

It makes sense, but I prefer to have them as maneuvers rather than consequences.  There is onl;y one consequence track.  If you have a good group.  1 socialite. 1 mentalist or intimidator. 1 combat monkey.  The opponent has little chance.  Yeah that's good tactics, but can make for a game with few challenges other than the Storyteller...trying to keep up with his PC's.

That's not really how I would do it, though. Sure, that would be the tactical thing to do, but I like to follow the narrative imperative here. I imagine a situation like that to be the combat monkey entirely. He snarks off against his opponent for a while, and once they are done with that, we go to commercial, and after that the physical fight starts. It would be rather silly, if it was the socialite who would now tap out and the combat money starts to fight. That can be done of course, but to me, it feels weird.

And the result doesn't have to be consequences. You don't have to stay in one type of conflict, if you don't like it, you can just get taken out and take what happens. In my live example with the hostage, the social conflict actually lead to the player getting a surprise attack in that was modeled like an ambush, meaning the defense skill was 0 for that first attack. Which lead to the bad guy being taken out in one punch.
On the other hand, if social is your strong suite, you can take a consequence to stay in the social conflict and try to get the upper hand there, in order to get an advantage in the resulting physical fight.

Generally though, I agree with the maneuver statement. I like to set the type of conflict to one of the 3 and only allow attacks in that area. The other types can be used as a maneuver, but not as a direct attack. So I can intimidate someone to stay away from me in a physical fight, or I can smash the table in a social conflict, for example.