ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Silverblaze on October 30, 2011, 03:07:17 AM
-
The following prompted me to create a new thread for this.
"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 30 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."
So sayeth the forums.
Anyhow...
This monday, our roleplaying group will be entering a social combat instead of actually just using our normal method for dealing with social encounters (yeah we're the weirdass crew who never use social combat, in favor of roleplaying etc.).
I find it likely that the social combat may indeed cause people to take consequences. I am wary of this. I understand that physical and mental consequences take their toll, can be tagged in combat and can lead to being unable to continue battle or taken out.
I however, do not see how social consequences should be able to force a combatant to stop fighting. Especially if they are fighting for their life...Social implications tend to be ignored in such circumstances. I understand the "taken out" result is not always unconcious or comatose, or mentally broken etc. It could be fleeing or too stunned to speak etc.
Therefore, I pose this question. Can mental and physical conseqeunces share a track and social have it's own? This keeps wizards properly balanced (not allowing a seperate mental consequence track) but prevents social combat from knocking someone out of a fight.
Something that I've never done, so I am curious... can you tag a mental or social consequence or spend a fate point for similar effect in physical combat to get a +2 bonus...or a physical or social in mental combat...or a physical or mental consequence in social combat?
-
You can only invoke a consequence (or any other aspect) if it's relevant.
So if you have the social consequence of "Horribly Foolish" or something, then in theory that can be tagged and whatnot in a physical combat, but the one doing the tagging would have to justify just how it benefits the roll in question.
-
myself I'm not against using separate consequences tracts... social consequences tend to be things along the lines of: Scared of Johnson, Publicly Humiliated, Can't Help But Like Smily, and the like... The idea is the feeling or disgrace lasts the length of the consequence. Myself I use one track... mainly cause I am a very compel heavy GM. If they had 2 tracts I could compel from I end up funneling to many FP onto the PCs. So I stick to the 1 track... occasionally my players do end up without a consequence slot they needed but hey that's the game. In general there is no long term negative for being taken out via social. The effect that was meant by the attack happens and it only lasts for the scene. So my players tend to not take much for social cons... they tend to just let them get taken out. But I don't see a huge issue with 2 tracks other then the over compels and self-compels. So if your not going to allow self-compels from the social track... I say go for it.
-
I don't see the point of this, but I don't foresee any problems either.
And you can tag any aspect to boost anything if the GM thinks it's appropriate.
-
I don't see the point of this, but I don't foresee any problems either.
And you can tag any aspect to boost anything if the GM thinks it's appropriate.
I'd be pissed off if my PC got knocked out of a phsyical fight due to a few social consequences taken prior to the combat. That's why. It's also why I don't like social combat.
if i start a figth with a social combat, (which I could see many physical fights being started by,) then the WCV hits a foe with a manuever or incite emotion attack for an additional consequence...most foes or PC's will have short fights.
I have grand issue with that in my gaming. Apperently most don't, but I surely do.
-
Yeah, doesn't bug me. It's like spending all your FP on a chess match before getting into a knife fight.
It occurs to me that this change would open up a little bit of design space. You could have a stunt with an effect like:
You may use your mild and moderate social consequences as physical consequences.
Might be a bad idea though.
-
Part of the reason for a single Consequence track (apart from those granted by high skills and/or Stunts) is that the DFRPG is expected to be a bit more brutal/lethal than some of the preceding Fate-based games like SoTC.
As it stands now, a PC with Endurance: Good (+3) and a clean Consequence or Physical Consequence track (depending on if ones goes with separate stress tracks) would need to take 25+ Stress from a single hit in order to kill the character. Granted, if the PC was to suddenly find themselves in melee combat with an Ogre or Troll champion of the Courts who had Mythic Strength and a two-handed sword or axe, such a devastating hit might happen, but it would still be pretty unlikely, since the PC's attacker would still need to get 16+ shifts of success for it to occur.
A good example occurred when "Sleepy Hollow" was run for a Game Day. A Red Court Infected PC charged the Headless Horseman and was slashed with the Horseman's saber. Between the saber being a Weapon: 2, the +4 to damage from Supernatural Strength and the # of shifts of success from the Weapons vs. Athletics attack/dodge roll, the PC took a Moderate Consequence of Broken Arm and filled in their 3rd stress box.
By having an entire Consequence track devoted to just Social or Mental consequences, it significantly reduced the impact of those kinds of Consequences. Especially if those particular stress tracks aren't the ones usually getting filled. If it takes a minimum of 23+ stress for a 'one-shot' taken out effect in Social combat, and the effects of Social combat have little impact on Physical or Mental combat, then Social combat only becomes dangerous if the PC sticks around long enough to get hit Socially repeatedly where they take stress.
Ultimately it's up to the GM and group how they wish to run things, but from a game balance perspective I see why multiple Consequence tracks weren't included. From a reality standpoint it makes sense as well, since if someone was absolutely humiliated about something important, it would throw that person off their game if/when they get into a fight or something similar. People in combat or other situations where attention to events and detail is critical, tend not to perform so well if they are distracted or otherwise preoccupied. In the event of combat, they tend to get seriously injured or killed or easily, or even worse can cause that to occur to their friends and allies.
Again, do what fits with your own group, but it does make sense how it is now.
-Cheers
-
I know why only a single track exists also...helps balance wizards.
There are other minor reasons but in the end, that's why.
I know it's RAW. i like game balance as much as the next guy...likely moreso...
I even respect the reasons for most of the rules, I completely understand... it's the social consequence part I don't get or like. I suppose that's just one more reason I don't like social combat.
I know it is supposed to be gritty...I just don't get how social consequences should effect combat...I understand mental and physical ones should. It also really makes the game sort of "easy" in my opinion.
Just get a group of three players. Have the social guy initiate social combat...have him inflict a few consequences, have a WCV or mental character apply a few conseqeucnes then shoot the foe a few times, virtually any problem solved. By that same token, beat someone up prior to socail combat etc.
Can't tag the innapropriate consequences, but for some reason since they got embarrased or infuriated, I can knock them out/make them retreat easier? Yeah...that makes sense... ::)
i know you can get stressed out and run away or give up...but lets just say you can't escape...the consequences don;t really present an accurate way of knowing how much physical punishment someone can take. Just because, I have a sever social consequence..I can't take a beating like I normally would? i can risk dying instead?
I'm just not seeing the sense. Sort of curious why there isn't just one stress track also.
However... I'm also aware I won't be budging virtually anyone on my view, so i think I'll just drop it.
-
I guess the reason that it makes sense to me is that I view consequences as plot armour. If you've already used your "get out of take-out free" card on a social fight, you can't use it on a physical one.
If you can inflict consequences on a guy in social combat, you take him out in social combat. Likewise with physical combat. Or mental combat. So I really can't see how this would make things easier.
-
Can't tag the innapropriate consequences, but for some reason since they got embarrased or infuriated, I can knock them out/make them retreat easier? Yeah...that makes sense... ::)
i know you can get stressed out and run away or give up...but lets just say you can't escape...the consequences don;t really present an accurate way of knowing how much physical punishment someone can take. Just because, I have a sever social consequence..I can't take a beating like I normally would? i can risk dying instead?
I'm just not seeing the sense. Sort of curious why there isn't just one stress track also.
However... I'm also aware I won't be budging virtually anyone on my view, so i think I'll just drop it.
I'm not trying to change your mind about Social consequences, but I am going to try and get you to see things in a different light. First you must remember that combat and 'injuries' are all rather abstract in DFRPG.
So, in physical combat situation like a firefight, people would be shooting at each other as well as dodging, ducking behind cover, etc. The Physical stress people take would generally represent fatigue someone suffers during the fight as the shoot, move, take cover, etc. The Physical consequences the PC take represents the actual injuries suffered during the firefight. Now these injuries aren't automatically going to include GSW because guns are involved. Instead a PC might have a Minor consequence of Bloody Gash to show where a brick or stone chip winged the player after a near hit with gunfire. Or perhaps a piece of furniture, appliance or something else could have fallen and hit the character, or the PC might have fallen onto, tripped over and run into something like the above, to take a physical injury, all without ever actually getting shot.
Now, for a player that is already suffering one or more Social consequences, who suddenly finds themselves involved in Physical combat, that character is going to start out the combat at least a little preoccupied and not perform their best during the combat. Perhaps at some point they zig, when they should have zagged. It's not at all unlike how people tend to perform poorly when they are demoralized or lack motivation about something. The effect of the Social consequence(s) on the character can be that lack of motivation, or perhaps distraction with other matters. It really depends on what the consequence is, and how it gets used but such consequences can have an impact.
-Cheers
-
I know why only a single track exists also...helps balance wizards.
There are other minor reasons but in the end, that's why.
I think the primary benefit with RAW here is you can't say to yourself, "Well, at least it's only a social consequence. Not like it can kill me or anything..."
-
Just in case anyone was wondering. We started it, it got awkward, I abandoned the project before its conclusion in favor of our usual RP it out. Although, as we found out over the course of the game, socials still make really good blocks and alternate ways to get what you want. Much to the chagrin of our spring prince when he ran into the attractive girl trying to keep something from him.
Anyway, maybe I was doing something wrong running it. I'm not prepared to rule that out. But the biggest distraction I found was the initiative. Group member A goes first, he stated something with a purpose to do X, member B gets to say something now. Better make it relevant to what the previous guy just said. Hold on Villain, don't interrupt. It's not your turn. Even with planning out and holding actions the whole thing was just coming out pretty clunky. And the concept of social consequences was, to put it mildly, less than popular.
I'm way open to suggestions on how something like this could have been done better, but for now we're just gonna stick with the way we decided at the start.
-
Initiative is clunky. Don't be a slave to it. Remember that you can talk without taking a social action.
So feel free to interrupt. Just don't expect your interruption to have a mechanical effect unless you held an action.
What does your group have against social consequences?
-
I agree that the combined consequences has an odd feel to it. A few things that may or may not help, however:
Consequences don't represent some form of physical/social/mental 'hitpoints', nor do they represent 'wounds' found in other games so much as they represent 'the will to continue struggling'. When you choose to take a consequence, you are declaring that you are so committed to continuing your struggle despite a momentary setback that you are throwing your will into following through. If you've already used some of your will 'reserves' in other conflicts (physical or not), then you have less to throw at the next one, and are more likely to give in.
Consequences are purely voluntary. The 'victim' chooses whether/when to take a consequence in lieu of being taken out. A character should only choose to take a consequence when avoiding the alternative is important to him. Keep in mind that in many RPGs, something like an intimidation attempt might be handled in a single roll; if the intimidator succeeds the intimidatee is intimidated (so to speak). In DFRPG, the defender has the option to take a consequence and continue to resist.
Consequences need not be purely negative. Perhaps someone can correct me if I missed it, but I don't see anywhere that states that consequences are anything more or less than Aspects with typically negative connotations, by which I mean that it seems possible that the 'victim' can invoke their own consequences when appropriate. For example, someone who was embarrassed socially just before the fight might draw upon their anger for strength. (Note that they wouldn't get to free-tag the consequence, as the character inflicting the consequence controls the tag, but they could use Fate to invoke.)
Concessions are a viable alternative. In the example of a pre-fight social conflict that you are likely to lose anyway, it might be worthwhile to consider a consession instead of racking up some consessions first. You get a lot more narrative during a concession than with a takeout; the concession to a social attack could range from backing out of the situation to losing your cool and starting a brawl (though, of course, the concession still has to fit the situation, and the table has a say in how reasonable your concession is).
-
Initiative is clunky. Don't be a slave to it. Remember that you can talk without taking a social action.
So feel free to interrupt. Just don't expect your interruption to have a mechanical effect unless you held an action.
What does your group have against social consequences?
It's probably just part of a natural aversion to a consequence from a part of the system they're not too fond of in the first place.
It also may have something to do with the way damage is taken in this system in general. The back and forth nature of it. Take a one on one fight for example. Say they're evenly matched from the get-go. Ignoring supplemental, defense, and multi attack options temporarily, combat is at its basic form a back and forth swatting contest that can end up in a race in some cases. Race to run out the stress boxes, race to get to the consequences. Granted this is basic, shouldn't ever really happen, most boring possible way to go about it type of fighting, but it can happen where if you're evenly enough matched it's a race to run the guy down. In this case being physically penalized by having less physical damage to stay in the fight can come off as annoying when you took the consequence in a social setting.
And before someone says it, I am aware mental takes those physical options away just as easily as does social. However, in game mechanics, mental damage is infinitely easier to associate with fallout from a battle or just driving yourself too hard. The area of your body affected is just a little different. Again, I know I'm generalizing here, mental stress can be a lot more complicated than just backlash from pushing too many spells, but the main point remains. It's a bit limiting to add in a third, when you're already splitting up your few consequences amongst two forms of damage.
-
Well, partially that's to avoid exactly the boring physical combat you describe. Imagine how much longer and less diverse a combat would be if only physical consequences mattered.
And presumably your player chose to accept the social consequence because continuing that struggle was more imortant than offering the concession or being taken out. If they chose to take a social consequence and got full benefit for their conscious decision, whining about it later because their choice had a cost is really a bit much don't you think? Decisions have consequences in FATE. That's why they call them consequences.
Look at it this way: what if there were no Consequences and you gave everyone three Resource points that they could spend to soak 4 stress points each. One of your players spends his RP in an argument with a White Court Vampire. Later, he's in a Fight with a werewolf and gets taken out. Is he going to argue you should give him his spent RP back because it wasn't used in a fight? That's functionally the same situation.
-
I see your point noclue, yet let me offer you another perspective.
I like my roleplaying more than combat, I really do, but if i do get in a fight I don't want punished for sticking out a role playing and social opportunity. With social combat, they have a goal of getting me to talk or calm me down, upset me etc. yes? Knowing I'll have to fight to defend people later - that's what i do with this character...I should just take my first hit to social stress and be taken out or concede most times? That kinda sucks. I think it makes a game harder for the GM to run if every encounter including social has to be balanced to character skills in the group or the players just get steam rolled everytime. Whereas if you avoid social combat altogether everyone can sit around, roleplay, roll some dice for effect, and get something out of it.
There isn't this metagame sitting in the back of your mind saying... "if you take those consequences you won't be able to save "character X" later if they get in trouble." I see it as a deterrent to be social and roleplay and I dislike that.
I totally think actions should have consequences, I just don't think every single encounter should impact my mental combat, social combat, and physical combat. Calling every encounter a combat makes me feel like the game is more hack and slash than storytelling and roleplay....even though I know that isn't true.
I honestly think I was trying to find a way to salvage social combat in my games and I see now for my play style, it really isn't possible for me to enjoy that part of the system. Even the words Social Combat...they just don't go together in my head. I understand hte analogy of delivering attacks with razor with or exchanging barbs...but I think taken as a whole it just doesn't work for me. Which would maek one think the system falls apart. Not for me...I just ignore the social stresses part. Social blocks and skills still have purpose to translate roleplaying into the game, but combat? Not so much, not for this guy anyhow.
-
How long are you keeping the consequences around and how soon is it going from chit chat to bleeding?
-
@silverblaze, I think it's a good thing to know what we like and don't like. So that's cool. My perspective is a little different. I don't see it as a deterrent to roleplay at all. But it makes me think hard about whether I need to win an argument bad enough. There's always a thought in the back of my head about how important any conflict is to my character. Taking a consequence to stay in the fight is always a deliberate choice. I like that. It means I'm always thinking about whether a concession makes sense and when I say fuck no, I'm taking a Consequence, it's a major deal. It's not just a throw away because I was mindlessly fighting back. Sometimes, that means I have to make hard choices between competing goals. I like that. And sometimes I get taken out by a damn werewolf and I'm wishing I had saved up a consequence...and I like that, too.
Oh, and that Consequence I picked up because I didn't want to lose the argument? Well, I know it's there, and I know that I can't take as much stress any more, so, I'm probably looking to accept compels, in order to have extra Fate to spend to bring down my margin of failure later. And, I like that.
EDIT: the game doesn't say to treat every encounter as a combat by the way. That's totally a choice that the GM and players make.
-
I have to admit the mingling of social and physical consequences has meant in my games that physical character don't take part in social combat (sit aside picking nails with a knife whilst waiting for the fighting to start) or choose to interrupt social combat by attacking someone (this happens a lot) it kind of steals social characters thunder. I deal with this by allowing social characters to use social attacks in combat but I know a lot of players don't allow that.