Now comes the problem I am unsure of. By changing the social conflict into a physical, the player avoided consequences to him and his allies. The NPC gets cheated out of his victory in the social conflict. Should such a situation be handled as a concession since they pretty much gave up in the social conflict? What would be appropriate here? I'm at a loss of ideas and can't find anything in the rules to help me. Any ideas guys?I would let it happen. The NPC should have stopped short of pushing the PCs to autocompel. If the NPC didn't know that the PCs could autocompel a social conflict into a physical one, then now he knows. He now knows that if he pushes the PCs too far, they will fight and talking doesn't work on them.
An absolute prohibition like that really doesn't suit narrative flow very well. By that logic, anyone who is poorly skilled at Physical conflict can nearly infinitely avoid it by making it a Social fight first, and then dictating a Taken Out result that prevents the more physically skilled opponent from ever being able to exercise their strengths. While it is true that fast wits and talk can get you out of a fight often, there are simply times where someone is going to decide your lip is too much and hit you.
Why are they seperate? If the vampire had filled up his social stress track, why not just launch a social attack in the middle of combat and Take Him Out - possibly describing him being backed into a corner and trapped!! to be fed on, later.
Pretty much this.
I don't recall seeing anything that says that social and physical contexts cannot exist in the same conflict. I mean, taunting someone in a fight is basically trying to inflict social stress on someone in the hopes of gaining an advantage in the form of a compel against a Consequence at some point. Why not continue to intimidate?
Why should it be the other way? Just because you're good at Physical, if someone starts a social conflict, you can just punch them in the face and describe a Taken Out result where they don't have to talk to them?Why should it not? If someone insult your mother, can you not punch him as a reply? It might not be the smartest thing in the world to do so, but those consequences may be secondary to the conflict. For example, if you start a social conflict(insulting his family for example) and the other party starts throwing punches, he might be arrested, but you might still get clocked.
Nah, just represent it as a weakness, as it really is; if someone has a glass jaw, then you can punch them and get them taken out. If someone has a problem about his mother, than bring it up during a fight and get him to do something stupid so you can deal with it. If you don't want the weakness, buy up your stress track and mental defenses.
Intertwining different forms of conflict would be a hopeless tangle in my opinion.
For me, taunting in combat is more like a maneuver than a social conflict.
Using Intimidation to place an aspect like "flustered" or "enraged" or whatever on the target.
Resisted with rapport. Maybe supplemented by weapons or fists to represent combat discipline...
that's how i see it.
Why should it not? If someone insult your mother, can you not punch him as a reply? It might not be the smartest thing in the world to do so, but those consequences may be secondary to the conflict. For example, if you start a social conflict(insulting his family for example) and the other party starts throwing punches, he might be arrested, but you might still get clocked.
Unless you are not going for realism but game balance instead, I do not see how if someone starts a social conflict, you cannot punch him to shut him up. In fact, I see it as a reasonable counter to whatever you have said to the person; if you do not want to get punched in the face, don't start a social conflict.
I don't think you can use an intimidate block vs entering physical Combat.
The following is general FATE stuff. I haven't memorized the intricacies of how Dresden is different than what I'm used to. So, please feel free to point out any rules that I'm breaking. (:
The way I see it, things are as complex as someone at the table is willing to make them.
If no one wants to do something tricksy, there's nothing stopping you from tossing punches at someone while they continue to try to frighten you off. Running a mixed social/physical conflict isn't an issue at all. Those who want to use physical violence use Alertness for initiative, while those who are using their social muscles use Empathy. Determine tie breakers normally between those using the same type of conflict, and use the opposing skill to break ties among those using differing types (so someone using physical conflict against a social conflict person uses Alertness, then breaks ties with the social dude with Empathy).
Someone being beaten on in social conflict can offer a Concession. They'll behave as though afraid and will back off, but they won't resort to physical violence. This way, you can avoid being Taken Out by giving some ground, and you can even be frightened away from physical violence, but you get to keep some Consequences unused.
Or you can use Maneuvers of a social nature during a physical fight. Keep using social skills to toss Aspects on the terrified victim, then pass off the free tags to your buddies. The narrative "looks" like you're cowering in fear, even if no actual social conflict is going on.
Or you can use intimidation as a Block. Stop someone from coming any closer to you with your big aura of fear. Or keep someone from leaving. Or whatever.
There are like a hundred ways to do something with this.
Why should it be the other way? Just because you're good at Physical, if someone starts a social conflict, you can just punch them in the face and describe a Taken Out result where they don't have to talk to them?
So, I'm curious, what exactly is the perceived difference between The Mouse's position, mine, and those others who are agreeing to allow mixing social/physical combat so long as everything is kept consistent?
Mostly that I'm cuter and more likable than you and thus easier to agree with.
:P
Better than Itchy & Scratchy
In our last session a situation came up in which I wasn't sure how to handle it. I decided to just go with what the players wanted but would like to have options if a similar situation presents its self in the future. The scene was as follows:
The group consisting of Simon the wizard, Erik the scion and William the vampire slayer. They had fought their way into the den of a pretty influential RCV, laying havoc on his property on the way in. The find them selfs outnumbered 3:1 by the retainers of said Vampire. Knowing of his strong position the Vamp starts a social conflict with the goal of intimidating the PC into leaving without rescuing the guy kidnapped by the RCV. The players are pretty much outclassed in the social conflict and quickly take social stress by the intimidation attacks. Shortly before consequences are taken, the scion decides that there has been enough talk, auto compelling one of his Aspects and making the social into a physical conflict.
Now comes the problem I am unsure of. By changing the social conflict into a physical, the player avoided consequences to him and his allies. The NPC gets cheated out of his victory in the social conflict. Should such a situation be handled as a concession since they pretty much gave up in the social conflict? What would be appropriate here? I'm at a loss of ideas and can't find anything in the rules to help me. Any ideas guys?