It's often a bit hard to justify, but yeah, that'd work mechanically. Though why bother? Almost any appropriate ones would work just as well as Mental Consequences anyway.
Are different Consequences recorded on different tracks like Stress? Because if so, then this potentially gives another place to shove Backlash. Of course, I haven't gotten to the Consequences part of the book yet, so I might be thinking about this wrongly.
No, they aren't. You only have one Mild Consequence, one Moderate, one Severe, and one Extreme, not one of each per Stress category.
Now a high Presence can give you additional Mild Consequences that can only be used for Social stuff, but that's the only thng that would make this useful.
The problem is, letting you take social stress often won't be an actual drawback to backlash. Social consequences, sure, but that is assuming you've already filled your social stress up. Stress goes away at the end of the scene, and it is unlikely that you will finish a fight and then go into a social conflict in the same scene, so using social stress is a freebie for backlash the majority of the time.
why not have that still happen, and take a physical/mental consequence to that effect? You get the result you are aiming for, and don't lose game balance from it.
But then wouldn't it be a double whammy? You'd take a Physical Consequence that would also act as a Social Consequence.Can you tell me when that would matter? A consequence is a consequence - a negative aspect that people can tag against you. Doesn't matter what type it is, really; if you show up to a ballroom dance with sprained ankle, you can bet somebody (the GM, at least, if not any given NPC) is going to invoke that against you.
Can you tell me when that would matter? A consequence is a consequence
Hmm ... why does everyone assume that social heavy characters are rare?
Well almost every power is designed for use in physical conflict, people like to play supernatural characters and so those that specialise tend to invest their skills in ways that compliment the refresh spent. If four out of five players are combat orientated or generally good at all things, the GM will normally tailor the story to suit; hence most adventures being skewed towards physical conflict. I'd enjoy playing a game that leans towards social conflict but if I'm going to be in a hack'n'slash style game then I'll probably play a character that can at least defend himself ok, which means I can't afford to put all of my points in social skills.
It's a shame but that's how it works.
I took the opportunity to take a few long breaths, calming myself down. I finally looked back at them. “Okay,” I asked. “Who are they? The victims.”
“You don’t need to know that,” Carmichael snapped.
“Ron,” Murphy said. “I could really use some coffee.”
Carmichael turned to her. He wasn’t tall, but he all but loomed over Murphy. “Aw, come on, Murph. This guy’s jerking your chain. You don’t really think he’s going to be able to tell you anything worth hearing, do you?”
Murphy regarded her partner’s sweaty, beady-eyed face with a sort of frosty hauteur, tough to pull off on someone six inches taller than she. “No cream, two sugars.”
“Dammit,” Carmichael said. He shot me a cold glance (but didn’t quite look at my eyes), then jammed his hands into his pants pockets and stalked out of the room.
So social heavy characters are basically just as powerful as physical heavy characters, just in a different way.
Actually in FATE, any character who has strong attacks for a Track can be considered Deadly.
Physically, you can beat him to get to your objective.
Socially you can intimidate or sweet talk him amd get to your objective.
Mentally you can just put him to sleep and tip-toe past him.
There isn't a perfect or right way to do it. Any of them works in the end. (Thou I would say Social or Mental would be less problematic than pure bruteness as they won't end in visits from Police later.)
(On a relative note, Molly is going to be very very scary.)(click to show/hide)
If its not as common to use magic in social circumstances as it is to use it in physical circumstances, then always allowing social backlash is unbalanced and a bit toothless.
If its not as common to use magic in social circumstances as it is to use it in physical circumstances, then always allowing social backlash is unbalanced and a bit toothless.
Allowing social stress isn't so good
But we've just established that using social attacks is just as viable a way to take someone out as using physical or mental attacks. Unless you're in some sort of duel where you are constrained to only do one sort of thing, I don't see why any one category of attacks would be less common than another. If anything, magic and mental attacks is probably the least common of all types of attacks, because it's not an option that normals have.
A consequence is a consequence is a consequence.
Unless you have a very flexible GM, social skills won't be usable as direct attacks during a fight scene.
All I am saying is that the circumstances where you get backlash are typically going to be the kind of scenes where the only kind of backlash that matters is physical and mental. Physical because that kind of stress will help your enemies beat you up, and mental because that kind of stress will hinder your primary mode of combat. Social stress that just goes away after the fight is over doesn't actually feel like a downside to magic, and magic needs tangible downsides or its just an I win kind of thing.
well, what about social stress that takes you out of a fight?
And yes, intimidation can be used during a physical fight, but more as color, or maybe a maneuver. I mean, we can say Harry does this and Harry does that, but the books are description, not explanations of how those descriptions take place in the framework of the RPG, so its a baseless kind of example.
When you are in a physical fight, the stakes are already set past the point of being scared out of the fight. Being scared out of the fight is a good coloring for a concession, but if you are setting your stakes when the fight starts, being taken out should have little to do with social composure. The stakes simply aren't appropriate for direct intimidation attacks in a fist fight, just like the stakes aren't appropriate for intimidation attacks in a public debate.
Not true, social attacks can be just as effective at taking out an opponent in a physical fight. In a fight against someone you can say you know their boss, or you can threaten them, or you can persuade them that you aren't worth fighting, or that they've got the wrong guy. As long as it makes narrative sense you can do it.
Stress isn't damage, it's their will to continue the conflict.
At this point, its just a basic disagreement over how stakes for conflicts should be rearranged. We have no more progress to make in this particular argument.
Taken Out is Taken Out, yes?
Not if the descriptions happen to be able to be modeled by the rules. When Harry pisses someone off enough to make a mistake, or bluff's them with a display of power, even after a physical fight has started, that's him making a Social attack to try and Take Out an opponent.
I think I disagree, both for real life and for game purposes. I think that Taken Out is Taken Out, no matter which Stress track you attack. Obviously trying to threaten someone with physical violence when physical violence has already broken out is useless, but that just means one needs to get more creative with one's social attacks. Maybe making some grand display of martial prowess, magical might, or social leverage (blackmail material?) would work. After all, that thug attacking you might not respond well to physical threats, but what if you pull out a picture of his daughter and imply nasty things, maybe he'll think twice, he might even get Taken Out, or Concede.
I mean, you simply cannot be killed with Social attacks.
Or Harry mouths off to the wrong person, who then simply pulls out a gun and attempts to ventilate his brain. Or goes to cut his throat while he's bound under running water.
Yeah, *IF* you have a picture of their daughter or some other genuine leverage.
Without that, they can simply respond to your empty threats with an immediate Concession of the social conflict (the specifics of which are up to them) and get back to the violence. For example, Harry considers the Nickelheads to be treacherous by default, so no amount of Rapport or Deceit will ever get him to simply "take their word for it". Thus, Nico needs to bring something else to the table, such as revealing that he knows Molly is standing by the sink, to convince Harry that he might have a sniper in the tree house taking aim at her. Harry could call Nico's bluff, but is it worth the risk?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Nico was bluffing and Harry did call him on it. Effectively, Harry Conceded that conflict to Nico, but since Nico didn't actually have the sniper in place, it didn't matter.
Whereas a physical conflict is when the fist are already flying, and you can toss insults, but for the most part the other guys head is already in the fight and the best you can do with threats and insults in to momentarily distract him so that you have a bonus for landing your next hit.
No, its not a house rule at all. The rules don't say one way or another how you have to set the stakes for particular conflicts.
Keep in mind that not all attacks are necessarily physically violent—a particularly persuasive argument, lie, or distraction can be considered an attack if it directly affects the opponent. Social attacks are appropriate in situations where the action contributes directly to removing the opponent as a factor in the conflict.
Its no more inconsistent than my understanding that you can't use fists in the middle of a debate without some kind of change in stakes.
If you are in a debate, the stakes are to convince everyone that you have the better argument. Punching the other guy would be effectively a concession of the debate, because that is clearly an inappropriate method to "take out" in the given context.
The stakes of a fight are typically implied to be standing when the other guy goes down. If those are in fact the stakes, then intimidation can give circumstantial bonuses (i.e., maneuvers) but can't give the final result.
Perhaps its a difference of play style, but I'm convinced the way I'm doing it makes sense. Every time you try to show a situation Harry has been in and model it using your method of understanding, know that it would be just as easy for me to do the same thing with my understanding, and it would still be coherent.
if they're more terrified of their boss than they are of you, such as if Marcone sent someone after your character. You ain't talking those guys out of punching you in the throat repeatedly with bullets because they know that if they let themselves be swayed Marcone will ruin their entire world.
Put another way, do you honestly think there is anything, and I mean anything, Bianca could have said to Harry after what happened to Susan that could have swayed him from torching the place?
I think it's situational, honestly. There are times when social attacks simply will not work, full stop. I mean, if someone is truly dedicated to doing harm to your physical person, you probably are not going to stop them by talking to them. Another example is if they're more terrified of their boss than they are of you, such as if Marcone sent someone after your character. You ain't talking those guys out of punching you in the throat repeatedly with bullets because they know that if they let themselves be swayed Marcone will ruin their entire world. Put another way, do you honestly think there is anything, and I mean anything, Bianca could have said to Harry after what happened to Susan that could have swayed him from torching the place? The answer is no, ladies and gents. There is a point of no return at which nothing anyone says is going to matter one tiny little bit, and in those situations the only resolution is either you are going down or they are. Let's use a different example: NewTrek. Kirk attempts to negotiate with Nero. Do you seriously think there is anything Kirk could have said to coax Nero into surrender/altering his behavior/storming off in a huff? Nope. The conflict had gone well beyond the point of talking, and that does happen.
I'd still argue that any opponent can usually just Concede a social conflict with a result of "I Get Pissed Off and Attack" or similar.
But Conceding means that you lost the conflict and cannot continue. Continuing to attack while in the same scene would contradict that.
But Conceding means that you lost the conflict and cannot continue. Continuing to attack while in the same scene would contradict that.
Attacking physically has nothing to do with attacking socially. Conceding applies to the variety of Conflict that's used, not everything.
You could concede a Physical Conflict allowing yourself to be captured, but initiate Social Conflict to get them to let you go fairly easily and logically, why wouldn't the reverse work?
Most characters, either PC or NPC, have a weakness of some sort; either physical, mental or social. If a character is great in physical conflict but awful as social conflict, can it really be a weakness if you rule that any social loss immediately becomes a physical conflict?
Most characters, either PC or NPC, have a weakness of some sort; either physical, mental or social. If a character is great in physical conflict but awful as social conflict, can it really be a weakness if you rule that any social loss immediately becomes a physical conflict?
I mean sure, for PC's that can be a bad thing, but if your group has reached the final act in their campaign and the boss is (literally) a monster in combat then can he never be defeated in a social conflict at all? Do social conflict-based characters have to sit on the bench while the guy with the katana and trenchcoat does all the work?
Sure, I guess you could say it's the GM's fault for not creating a bad guy that can be defeated socially, but few NPC's will stop misbehaving after a stern talking to.
What about the whole warrior psychologist thing where the opponent ends up flashing back to their traumatic childhood, gains a backstory over the course of five to ten minutes, then stops fighting (or occasionally joins the team). Seen it a million times
Oh yes, I see you're correct. Still, getting Taken Out socially or even Conceding does give a decisive advantage to the winner of the conflict. If the Social attacker Takes Out his opponent, he gets to decide what the opponent does, and that may include not continuing to fight.
Generally speaking, getting taken out applies only to the venue of the attack in question. For instance, getting taken out socially means a character has lost his cool and is totally flustered, but he may still be able to punch someone or run away. Getting taken out physically might mean the character is physically incapacitated, but he may still interact socially in some way (though unconsciousness and death do tend to put a small crimp in such things).
But Conceding means that you lost the conflict and cannot continue. Continuing to attack while in the same scene would contradict that.This is why social conflicts with potentially hostile individuals/groups should occur when there are witnesses that won't jump in against you. Witnesses keep people honest.
Very true, though what about other methods of attack besides Intimidation. I mean we also have Presence, Rapport, Deceit, and possibly even Empathy, though that's probably more useful for assessing Aspects to tag.It seems the topic has strayed from social stress as a backlash.
Also, what if the outcomes you're aiming for are things like YOU LIKE ME, GRUDGING RESPECT, YOU WANT TO HELP ME, I REMIND YOU OF YOU, or any other version of gaining reputation points?
Even with Intimidation, I can see an outcome of YOU THINK I'M PLUCKY AND FUNNY. I remember some scenes form movies where the hero ends up drinking buddies with someone even after throwing a few punches.
It seems the topic has strayed from social stress as a backlash.
But I would say that those things are maneuvers to put those aspects on the target for the purposes of tagging those aspects for an effect (a compel to get what you want).
Very true, though what about other methods of attack besides Intimidation. I mean we also have Presence, Rapport, Deceit, and possibly even Empathy, though that's probably more useful for assessing Aspects to tag.
Also, what if the outcomes you're aiming for are things like YOU LIKE ME, GRUDGING RESPECT, YOU WANT TO HELP ME, I REMIND YOU OF YOU, or any other version of gaining reputation points?
Even with Intimidation, I can see an outcome of YOU THINK I'M PLUCKY AND FUNNY. I remember some scenes form movies where the hero ends up drinking buddies with someone even after throwing a few punches.
I guess the question currently at hand is how much an attacker can dictate the actions of the target. The way I read the rules, the attacker can dictate WHAT the target does, within a pretty wide margin of reason, but not HOW.
In general I would ask the winner what he wants the target to do, then ask the loser if there were any possible reason he would do that. If there is any possibility of the loser of a conflict doing what the winner dictates, the loser does that. Only in cases where it would be totally out of character for the loser to perform that action would I ask for the winner to moderate or change the requested declaration. The loser still gets to choose the specific way the outcome happens, of course.
That's how I think being Taken Out works. Essentially, if the winner of a conflict wants the loser to not escalate into a physical conflict, the loser complies unless that is an absolute impossibility in his mind.
Correct, with the additional caveat that you cannot dictate restrictions on the target's actions outside the venue of the conflict. If you take someone out mentally, you can't say "and he can't try to persuade anyone else to listen to him" because persuading people to listen is a social action. If you take someone out socially you can't say "and he can't try to figure out the riddle," because figuring out the riddle is a social action. And if you take someone out socially, you can't say "and he doesn't punch me in the face," because that's a physical action.
No, that's not how being taken out works at all. The winner dictates what happens, not what doesn't happen, and the loser dictates how. The winner can say "you embarrass yourself and leave the room," and the loser gets to decide how that happens. Maybe the loser runs out sobbing, or maybe he just stands up stiffly and stalks out. The loser is absolutely, totally, 100% free to then come back into the room later and open fire on you, or punch you in the face, or whatever. "You don't attack me" is not a valid "taken out" result.
I guess the question currently at hand is how much an attacker can dictate the actions of the target. The way I read the rules, the attacker can dictate WHAT the target does, within a pretty wide margin of reason, but not HOW.
What happens as a result of a social take out is highly situational.
A lot of the time, you're not even in the stage where taken out would even apply.
Imagine a thug losing a social conflict, rather than just get humiliated until he loses, he just starts punching and shifts the conflict to a venue where the thug has the upper hand. One of the easiest ways to prevent any further social interaction on losing ground is for him to use his Fists vs Mr. Smart Mouth's physical defenses to put a sticky aspect and/or consequences on him like "Busted Lip" and tag it for social defense when needed. "What was that? I couldn't hear you through all that blood." <POW> "You spittin' out teeth now or what?"