I usually like to limit a conflict to one type of stress, that of the main focus of the fight. If it's a gun or fist fight, that's physical, if it's a discussion or some weird spell, that's mental, if it's some negotiation or something similar, social. I only allow actions that don't fit that type to be maneuvers to aid the main actions.

I expect that the majority of conflicts would be covered by a single stress track.  But I can imagine a few where that wouldn't make sense.  For example, what about a scenario where one half of the combat wants to beat up the other half, while the other half wants to talk them out of it?

(You know, something appropriately dramatic like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G8V00SkTvY)

I would imagine that the dramatic tension in this sort of scenario would be: Can I get through to [Character X] before they beat me unconscious (or kill me)?  In that case, it wouldn't make sense to break up the physical and social/mental conflicts.

In my opinion, Elliot should have higher Endurance (I'd make it his highest skill) as well as some Endurance/Toughness stunts.  In the show, he was always getting beaten down but he just kept getting up again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeLYWVVMo_w

Possible stunts:
"Why won't you stay down?" Allows Elliot to take 1 additional minor consequences
"Got my second wind" Allows him to clear his entire stress track once per scene

I'd probably lower Resources, too, since he never seemed to use money that much, so maybe...
Skills:
Superb: Performance (Cooking)
Great: Endurance, Athletics
Good: Fists , Weapons
Fair: Deceit, Scholarship
Average: Might, Stealth

(The Superb cooking skill might be a bit of a stretch...)

Thanks for all the replies, as well as the links.

I think we're all pretty much agreed that social maneuvers can be attempted mid-combat, with the GM being the arbiter of whether a maneuver is appropriate or not.  So you could easily make your opponent DISTRACTED or LOSING THEIR TEMPER, which could both be tagged later.

What about adding an additional threshold for social attacks and blocks?

• You can tag or invoke an appropriate aspect to be able to make specific social attacks in the middle of combat

Some examples:

• If you were fighting against a bunch of UNDERPAID MOOKS, you could invoke that aspect with a Fate Point to allow you to make and Intimidation Attack.  Against a tougher opponent, there wouldn't be an aspect to suggest that scaring them during the fight was possible.
• If you already assessed that a Valkyrie character was LOOKING FOR HER FATHER, you could spend a Fate Point to Block her sword attack with Deceit ("Wait!  I am your father!"). But the GM would rule that you could only make that Block once.

That way, you would leave the door open for some of the cool, fast social moments that happen in the middle of combat, but you don't open the door to a character taking out an undead dragon in combat via a couple of Intimidation rolls.

Thoughts?

I'm working on a trickster character who, among other things, would probably employ a wide range of social actions in a physical combat.

Maneuvers: This is fairly straightforward, and the most obvious use of social attacks.

• "Look behind you!" (Deceit vs. Discipline/Alertness) applies the "Distracted" aspect, etc.

Blocks: Could blocks could be justified?

• "If you kill us you'll be the monster they think you are!" (Rapport vs. Conviction) applies a block against attacks from the target

Attacks: Could you actually Take Out someone socially in the middle of a conflict?

• "I'll rip your heart out!" (Intimidation vs. Conviction/Discipline) - Social attack intended to make the target flee
• "She'll never love you" (Deceit/Rapport vs. Conviction/Discipline) - Social attack intended to make the target break down in tears
• "What's the point of it all?" (Deceit/Rapport vs. Conviction/Discipline) - Social attack intended to make the target stop caring about the conflict
• "Why can't we all just get along?" (Rapport vs. Conviction/Discipline) - Social attack intended to make the target switch sides

Defense: I would say that once an attack has been made, you couldn't defend against it socially ("Not in the face!") without a stunt or two.

There's lots of examples in movies/books/etc. of protagonists talking their way out of the middle of a fight (by converting, cowing, or confusing their opponent), and I'm interested in the best way to handle those actions mechanically.

New forum member here, and I was just curious: has anyone used the DFRPG outside of the Dresden Files setting? How well did that work for you?

I ask because I'm planning the same thing, and would appreciate some examples. Especially since the well of inspiration is getting a mite dry.

I ran a no-prep session of DFRPG a few weeks ago.  I basically skipped city creation and used the quick-start character rules (pick a name and a pinnacle skill, then assign skills and powers as they come up in play).

Plot and universe was established by asking questions as the story went along.  As a result, the characters ended up in a sci-fi space adventure, in a universe primarily based on organic tech (similar to Farscape) with some cybertechnology thrown in as well.  The PCs were space couriers who had lost their original fleet of ships to mutiny.  During the course of the first session, they:

• Nearly had their cargo hijacked by a previous employee (one of the mutinous captains)
• Fed and befriended some orphans in a bizarre and awesomely unnecessary ploy to avoid suspicion
• Delivered their cargo only to discover it was actually a bomb that destroyed a city-skyscraper full of hundreds of thousands of people
• Got consripted/blackmailed by a mysterious (Amanda Waller-inspired) woman into finding out who was responsible for delivering the bomb
• Tracked down the squid-faced guy who hired them, only to have him get shot before they could get any information out of him
• Got blamed for squid-face's death by his shark-faced cousin, the interplanetary ganster, and then killed some of his men while escaping

Haven't had a chance to play a second session, but the first one went pretty well, all things considered.  DFRPG is a good, stream-lined system for making stuff up on the fly.  None of the NPCs were statted up ahead of time - I was able to decide on the fly what approximate skill levels they should have.  We were also able to come up with some decent Powers on-the-fly.  The captain was a mostly-machine cyborg with a "skill-jack", that allowed him to spend a fate point to swap in different Scholarship specializations.  The engineer was a genetic modification specialist, who could spend fate points to add temporary upgrades/powers to any organic technology (like their ship).  Plus he could survive in the vacuum of space.

I didn't get a chance to run any social conflicts, but we ran a decent space conflict between the PCs ships and three smaller craft trying to steal their cargo.  I basically ran it as a straight conflict with the engineer (+4 Piloting) and NPC gunner (+2 Guns) vs. three enemy pilots (+2 Guns/Piloting).

The -2 rebate is for an item being obvious, not being removable. That is because the greatest advantage powers have over technology is that they are not obvious and thus you cannot know what they are, what they do and what your opponent intends. Take the Swords of the Cross for example - they are a catch for the vast majority of opponents so they can't be easily taken away and their "higher purpose" ensures they cannot be used - unless you try to misuse them yourself first. However, they are swords. If anyone sees you moving around with a sword, what happens? You can't enter most places with a sword or similarly obvious weapon, and most authorities will try to get you if you openly carry one.
The armor does not get a -2 rebate because it can be stolen. It gets -2 rebate because when you wear it, everyone and their mother knows you are wearing a tank and intend to use it. If you don't wear it and a battle starts, you need at least 5 minutes to strap it on (it's full plate armor).

As for the weight of the armor, I was going with how much a tank's armor actually weighed in real life.

Hmm... I'm not sure about this reasoning.  Yes, if people see you walking around with a tank, they are going to treat you differently... on the other hand, if people see you walking around as a giant, they are already going to treat you differently.  I'm going to be honest with you - I don't think I'd treat a giant wearing tank armor any differently than I'd treat a regular, unarmored giant.

On the other hand, the fact that it takes a long time to put on is valid, but only if you expect that to come up during play.

What this does is push conviction up the totem pole of wizard skills, so that choosing your pinnacle wizard skills is harder.  Also, you want all three as high as possible, which is one of the real weaknesses of wizards: they usually want three pinnacle skills (Discipline, Lore, Conviction) that have sort limited utility in other situations.  Then, if you want to be a fighting wizard, you have to squeeze in athletics and alertness and ...  But, with the removal of block power being based on your conviction, a wizard really only 'needs' a conviction of 3 for the 4 mental stress boxes.  That leaves him more skill options than a stock wizard.

Hmm...  I would agree with your description of how Wizards currently choose their skills.  I'm not convinced that having three pinnacle skills is an absolute requirement for Wizards to be interesting.

Consider this: Under the current rules, it is difficult to create a High Conviction, Low Discipline Wizard.  That character has access to big shifts of power, but can't control it without spending Fate points or tagging Aspects.  So most of the time they would have to settle for weaker spells.  The Houseruled Wizard could pull off a High Conviction, Low Discipline Wizard a bit better, since screwing up a spell would earn them a Fate point (which they could use on future spells).

I guess my point is, while I acknowledge that these rules would change the baseline for what skill levels a Wizard needs, I don't see why that is necessarily a bad thing (or a good thing, really... I see it as a neutral thing).  From an optimization standpoint, Discipline is more important than Conviction, but so what?

And, of course, a Wizard with Conviction 5 could blow up two zones in one exchange, rather than just one, which is kind of cool.

Anyway, let me ask some practical questions:
1) Would it help if there were more options for "Spell Power"?  Currently, we have two options (Reduce Power by 2/zone, Reduce Power by 2/exchange).  What about adding more options?
- Reduce Power by 3 to add a Maneuver
- Reduce Power by 2 to move the target one zone

2) Would it help if we used Spell Power (Conviction + Specialization) to add duration to a Block?
- Evocation Blocks last Spell Power/2 exchanges

Both of those options might make extra Conviction more interesting.  What do you think?

You're right - it was 19.  The point is that a wizard using RAW can easily add 5 shifts of power to an attack.  I used a perfect roll just for the sake of example.  In reality, it wouldn't be hard to control that amount of power for a wizard who is tagging consequences, NVGs, or using fate points.

Okay, the difference between a 19 shift attack and a 16 shift attack doesn't seem that huge to me, but I'll grant the distinction.  A regular wizard could easily add 5 shifts of power, if they're willing to take a minor consequence and commit to tagging/invoking aspects.  (I admit I can't figure out what NVGs are...)  A house ruled Wizard could only add 2 shifts, if they're willing to take a minor consequence, but they won't have to commit to tagging/invoking aspects.

So that's a legitimate issue.  Do those three shifts really make a difference?

Nope.  It's considered a counterspell - and counterspells have to match the original spell power-for-power.

That is... not at all how I read Evocation Blocks.  They certainly can be destroyed using Counterspells, but they could just as easily be destroyed by using bullets, an incredibly strong kick, or a strong Evocation attack.  The attack would still be weakened by the strength of the Block, but the Block would get destroyed in the process.  Do you believe that if a wizard threw a Weapon:4 fireball at a Strength:5 Block, the attack would be negated, regardless of how many shifts were gathered on the targeting roll?

Also note that, if something really needs to be counterspelled, the houserules treat that as Thaumaturgy.  And houseruled Thaumaturgy can increase Spell Power by tagging/invoking or by taking a consequence.  So a Wizard with +3 Lore could counterspell up to a Block:7 in a single exchange (although most likely they would have to tag/invoke in order to do it successfully).