Social Combat

[eberg]

I'm eight sessions into my DF campaign and the only thing we are still getting hung up on is social combat. Basically, we find that it completely ruins the flow of role-play introducing the contest structure with exchanges and lots of rolls and keeping track of stress and consequences. I have dropped social contests entirely at this point, replacing them with a few skill rolls at good break points and winging it rather than using stress and consequences, which I feel is a pity because I /like/ some formality to social interactions. It prevents players from ignoring persuasive or scary opponents and lets me feel like my decisions about how NPCs react aren't quite so arbitrary. Anyone have advice on how to do social combat in a more naturalistic fashion? Should I just give up on social conflicts and use simple contests, instead?

[FangGrip]

My group seems to enjoy them a lot.

Try and work the rolls around the conversation.  Try to think about what the active player is trying to attempt.  Let them say more than a few sentences, let them get across an idea.  Then roll, and let that partially dictate the response of the other player. 

Most of my group seems to get the somewhat odd flow that social conflicts generate, and have really gotten into a few.  Oh, and try to have definitive goals for each side of a social conflict.  It will really help with concessions.

[Drashna]

I think FangGrip has the right idea.  Social conflict shouldn't be seen as something that must be rolled. Basically, let the roleplaying go naturally, and if there is a point where dice make a difference, Role. That or don't bother with the dice, and just use the straight numbers from the skills people have and invoke aspects and the like. As the GM, worry about the stress for the PCs and NPCs, and when it becomes relavent to a player, let them know. 

Social combat doesn't need to be removed, but I do agree it's probably the most difficult part of DFRPG, as it is very abstract.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

On the subject of definitive goals, I think it really, really helps to - just for the record - state what's being attempted going into the conflict.

Also, not to imply anything, but I'm one of those guys who glosses over certain sections of a book when I think I have it down. If you are like me, go read the actual section titled Social Conflicts: there are a ton of cool examples there. The one that got me thinking more clearly about things was the part about refusing a drink (see: social attack using Rapport to begin a seduction) by leaning over to the bartender and telling him you were the DD, and not to let people buy you drinks (a successful defense using Rapport as well, allowing you both to save face, and not making it negative).

In that same page, on the side notes, it's mentioned that Thomas might "Kill them with kindness," and end a social conflict entirely politely, convincing someone to come and meet him later for a more intimate time... which is another way of saying, he won and the other party was taken out.

[wolff96]

We've had a few really great ones in my game.

The first was rather simple -- a PC was grilling an NPC for information, but didn't want the woman to realize she was being questioned.  (The character wasn't sure if she was involved and just wanted the information.)  So it made for a good combat -- can you read your opponent and get the information you want without her finding out what you're up to?  The best part was the PC using Rapport to 'read' her opponent, figure out that she was lonely (a simplification of one of her Aspects) and use that to squeeze for the information.  NET RESULT:  The PC walked away with the information, with her subject unaware.

The second was rather odd -- it was between two PCs!  And I had basically nothing to do with it!  One PC is rather paranoid (and I had offered a Compel to him that made him suspicious of new people) and didn't trust the other character.  So she was trying to convince him of what she was trying to say and that she was on his side.  She won, they both discovered more of each other's Aspects, and a good time was had by all.  NET RESULT:  Better than the DM could have ever planned!

The last one is probably my favorite -- a PC got jumped in an alley by some thugs.  So it was a bizarre and mutant combat, half physical and half social.  They applied a couple of Manuvers to him, one got him in a grapple, and the other threatened him (and softened his gut with a few punches).  The PC ended up conceding after suffering a minor consequence, but *did* come out of the encounter with some new information.  NET RESULT:  It really worked out well.

--------------------------------------

Social Conflicts are a bit of an odd beast.  (So are Mental, for that matter.)  Still, for our group at least, they work very well and add a LOT of fun options to the game.

[luminos]

Social conflicts were a little bit awkward for me at first (and I'm still figuring out some of the details), but there are several things that make it work better if you get bogged down with it.

- Like two others have already said, get a general idea for the goal of the participants when the conflict begins.  This is amazingly useful. 

- NPC's should take fewer consequences than they would in a physical conflict.  The stakes aren't usually as huge in losing a social battle as they are for a physical one, so NPC's taking fewer consequences makes sense as they aren't risking as much.  This helps speed things up. Supporting NPC's should generally take nothing more than a minor, and Main NPC's should generally take a moderate, or more rarely, a severe, before giving in.  Unnamed, unimportant NPC should just require one or two skill rolls or an extended contest rather than the full conflict rules.

- Tying in the results of the rolls into what gets said and done is an absolute must to keep the conflict interesting. 

[noclue]

Love, Love, Love social conflicts in Dresden.

We don't find them very difficult in our group. They tend to happen in one of two ways.

1) We're roleplaying around something we consider important, like are we going to go and save our friend who's been captured by the Winter Court, or are we going to find someplace to hide the sword that we have stolen off of the Warden that is trying to set us up as Lawbreakers who murdered our mentor, before they find us. One of will say "That sounds like your making a Rapport attack" or "I think you're trying to Intimidate him, no?" And we grab dice.

2) One of us will turn to the GM and say "I look her in the eye and say 'You know we couldn't have done this. Can't you see we're being set up?" and turning to the GM I say "I'm using Rapport" and roll dice.

Either way the defender grabs their dice and rolls and we rollplay that snippet of the conflict and go from there until the conflict resolves.

[Taran]

O.k,

I'm used to the classic D&D social combat:  "I use diplomacy" *roll dice*  "I got a 23!"
The dm sees that I beat the difficulty, judges by how much I beat it, then tries to figure out how much information to give to the player - which is hard sometimes...sometimes you don't want to give it ALL away.

This is generally what we've been doing.  Sometimes the GM doesn't even roll dice and uses the NPC's base skill as the difficulty.

My issue with this is there is so much more that could be done.  Is the guy giving me real information, or fake information?

I'm playing a "face"-type character who has high investigate, rapport and empathy so, obviously, I'm looking for more out of social combat, but the GM is worried that it'll take up too much game time.  Especially when I might be interviewing an NPC who knows nothing and is not important to the plot.
I see his point, but I like Red Herrings.  I don't always want to know if I've TRULY succeeded.

The other players' characters have social skills as well: presence, intimidate, rapport...it's just not as high as mine.

When do you go into full-out social combat and when do you just do a few rolls?
Do you need social combat to discover aspects or do you just need one roll and a couple of shifts?(as per the skill description)

So for example, a peice of evidence on a crime scene has gone missing.  I suspect the cop guarding the scene has been paid off and took the evidence.  I ask him if he found something and he says no...to Gm, "I use empathy to see if he's lying."
 *roll dice*
DM: no, he's not lying".

how much into detail should we go?

[devonapple]

I, too, had an issue last game. We did our first social conflict: a Sidhe noble attempting to seduce/enlist one of the PCs (who has the aspect "Only Boy Scout with a NeverNever Badge"), by dangling information in front of him. It was my first time running such a conflict, and when the PC opted to just walk away from the conflict after taking some Social Stress, I was at somewhat of a loss as to how to proceed.

We went metagame for a moment and decided that the player was Conceding (I'm still learning these rules as well), and we negotiated that he would accept a consequence "Investigating On Behalf of the Sidhe" in order to get out of it, which would compel (not Compel with a capital C) him to go investigate something which benefited bot the Sidhe noble as well as moved the plot forward.

Did... uh... did I do that properly?

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Makes sense to me!

[ironpoet]

When do you go into full-out social combat and when do you just do a few rolls?
Do you need social combat to discover aspects or do you just need one roll and a couple of shifts?(as per the skill description)

So for example, a peice of evidence on a crime scene has gone missing.  I suspect the cop guarding the scene has been paid off and took the evidence.  I ask him if he found something and he says no...to Gm, "I use empathy to see if he's lying."
 *roll dice*
DM: no, he's not lying".

how much into detail should we go?

I'm no expert, but here are the guidelines I would personally follow:

1) Full Social Combat (including "initiative", stress, etc.) should only occur when both parties actively want something.  If there's nothing at stake, why would you be fighting?  Good examples would be: negotiating a deal, trying to get information without giving anything away, trying to convert an evil sorceror to the Path of Goodness and Truth without being drawn to the Dark Side.

2) Opposed Rolls should only occur if there is an intersting outcome for *both* success and failure.  In the case of the example above, Failure was an interesting option ("You suspect that the cop is lying") since it adds something new to the story.  But success was boring ("Nope.  He's not lying.")  In that case, I'd either think of a more interesting outcome for success ("He didn't take the evidence, but he knows who did.") or I would skip the Empathy roll entirely.

3) In general, I would treat social interactions the same way a novel writer would.  If it doesn't move the story forward, I would skip over it.

[Arcteryx]

Love this thread. Have ran a couple of samples but we all know how first real contact with live ammunition will be the real test. That example quoted where the character walks away... that's awesome. I've read the example in the books but I just know the first time the tank of the group takes some social "damage", there is going to be much grumbling and hand-wringing...

[eberg]

I had some success "lightening up" the social combat and not worrying about running is quite so "exchange by exchange" as someone suggested. Had a sit-down between the party and a hag whom they suspected of kidnapping a boy for sacrificial purposes. Most of it was role-play, but with a heavy use of Empathy rolls to get a sense of her motives and if she was telling the truth. Some outstanding rolls for her for Deceit led to them leaving thinking she was on the level and with an utterly misleading Aspect. Ended up losing them most of a day stopping her. I think I may have a handle on it now, though the use of Social Stress and Consequences is still a bit shaky to me. I'll have to ease into them.

[Taran]

2) Opposed Rolls should only occur if there is an intersting outcome for *both* success and failure.  In the case of the example above, Failure was an interesting option ("You suspect that the cop is lying") since it adds something new to the story.  But success was boring ("Nope.  He's not lying.")  In that case, I'd either think of a more interesting outcome for success ("He didn't take the evidence, but he knows who did.") or I would skip the Empathy roll entirely.

In that particular situation, I rolled a +7 empathy roll.  The GM said, "you know what, you fail that role - here's a fate point -   I'm compelling your corrupt cop aspect.  You get that he's telling the truth, but he's insulted you're insinuating he's corrupt.  You just made an enemy on the force"

Technically, since I failed, he still could be guilty, but is using deceit.  So we could have broke it all down into a combat, but it didn't really matter in the end.  Could that same result have happened in a full-out combat?  At what point does the DM say, "here's a fate point - you lose" 

[MyNinjaH8sU]

At the point the player accepts that Fate point without buying it off and without negotiation, in my experience. It's not meant to be an "I Win" button for the GM. It's meant to be an "Interesting" button for everyone.

I don't know the particular circumstance, but if you have the Corrupt Cop aspect, then it sounds valid to have a straight cop shoot you down because he knows or suspects it. But if you had fate you can and possibly should have bought it off of the GM if you really wanted to get the guy.

Also, yes, Compels can replace a conflict, but they don't have to. There's an example in YS of Harry being Compelled to miss an attack roll and light the building on fire instead. Combat continued afterwards.