That One Guy - Heckler At The Training Dojo

[Sanctaphrax]

@Mr Death: Physical consequences don't have to be injuries, though they usually are. The effects of a nasty disease or an accidental haircut with a sword could also be physical consequences and neither has any effect on your ability to fight.

It's also worth bearing in mind that most people don't get consequences. A weapon 2 gun fired with Good skill will kill most people in one attempt. Those people can't just take a mild or a moderate in order to survive.

If you survive an attack by taking a consequence, that's not normal. It's you getting saved from an attack by the narrative fiat of the person running you. It's practically divine intervention.

@Silverblaze: You are not making sense to me. Are you under the impression that once someone rolls Empathy for initiative everyone loses the ability to fight?

There's nothing stopping you from replying to social-dude's attempt to initiate a social scene by walking away or punching him, as far as I know.

[UmbraLux]

In general I'm not a big fan of DFRPG's social combat*.  Consequently I tend to use it for pacing more than anything else.  That said, a "You made me look bad so I'm going to kick your a$$!" reaction is something I see as a valid concession to social conflict...and an escalation to physical. 

Losing an argument doesn't need to mean you're beaten and conceding a verbal argument in favor of physical is a time honored response.  (Usually by bullies in grade school but, if combat is an option...)

*Diaspora's model interests me some...it's more interesting than beating each other with verbal fists until someone cries uncle.

[Mr. Death]

@Mr Death: Physical consequences don't have to be injuries, though they usually are. The effects of a nasty disease or an accidental haircut with a sword could also be physical consequences and neither has any effect on your ability to fight.

A nasty disease will sap your strength at the very least, which definitely affects your ability to fight. Hell, try running when you have a cough; it's definitely not easy.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't accept an accidental haircut as a consequence--it's stress, tops. A consequence should be, well, consequential--it should have some real affect on whatever track it's associated with. If it's physical, it should affect you physically, otherwise how the heck is it going to be compelled? A close-call haircut only affects you superficially unless you happen to be Samson, and robs whoever inflicted the consequence of a reasonable tag.

[JoshTheValiant]

YS 203-204 (emphasis mine):
"Any time a character takes stress, he may opt to take a consequence to reduce the amount of stress received from the attack. The exact nature of the consequence depends upon the conflict—an injury might be appropriate for a physical struggle, but an emotional state might be apt for a social one. Whatever the consequence, it is written down under the stress track.

Normally, the player taking the consequence gets to describe what it is, so long as it’s compatible with the nature of the attack that inflicted the harm. The GM arbitrates the appropriateness of a consequence and there may be some back and forth conversation before settling on one. The GM is the final authority on whether a player’s suggested consequence is reasonable for the circumstances and severity."

My example is not particularly a violation of RAW: it just may not work for every GM or group.

Huh.  Point noted and ceded.  I guess I inferred stress > consequence rather than actually reading it.  Cool beans.

I know the game is not D20 system nor White Wolf etc.  It is a narrative game, I don't like narratives where I always get stomped or have to flee social encounters or simply ignore them and not "roleplay" as the system suggests.

As long as we're sharing pennies, I'll throw in mine:  Part of the reason I latched onto Fate was BECAUSE of Social Combat.  I loved the idea of having a concrete mechanic for a debate or a shouting match or whatever else.  I don't like forcing players to be eloquent and confident speakers just because they're playing one.  Roleplaying, imo, is the decision making process, not the application of the solution.  The ability to portray an imaginary character is a huge draw for this kind of game, and social fantasy fulfillment is just as vital in my mind as physical or supernatural ones.

My only problems with it thus far are envisioning precise exchanges and how the skills interact, the rate of speed for concurrent physical and social conflicts, and suspension of disbelief when consequences overflow to influence contests that they don't seem to have any bearing on.

I hadn't considered the problem of supernatural toughness getting trumped by social prowess, but now forewarned, I can become forearmed, and for that, I thank you.

*Diaspora's model interests me some...it's more interesting than beating each other with verbal fists until someone cries uncle.

You people need to _never stop feeding me with new games to plunder mechanics from.  ;_;

[Sanctaphrax]

Not all diseases make it hard to fight. One of the best martial artists I know has epilepsy. And many diseases have latency periods or otherwise are not always active. But if you get attacked while your disease consequence is not active, you still suffer from reduced chances of victory.

Incidentally, a character who has his arm chopped off in one fight can't have his other arm chopped off in the next because his physical extreme slot is full.

And a haircut is a lasting physical alteration to a character that can reasonably result from a physical attack and that can be important to some characters (those that care about their looks). It can't always just be stress. Check out tvtropes if you want examples.

My point is that the rules don't make all that much more sense than D&D's hitpoints anyway, so complaining that they're illogical is daft.

[devonapple]

You people need to _never stop feeding me with new games to plunder mechanics from.  ;_;

Tell me about it.

I'd certainly like there to be a more concrete scale fractal between the Physical and the Social. The book tries to contextualize it, explaining that social conflicts can happen over longer periods of time.

I also don't like the "Unknown Smear Campaign Consequence" example (in which an unknown or unknowable social consequence is taking up a Consequence slot like an albatross around the player's neck, mysteriously making him less effective in a bar brawl because a socialite has made him a laughingstock across town and off camera), because it is always brought up in a vacuum, when in actual play, such Consequences would ideally come after a Conflict and be settled on by the player. If a GM just sticks that Consequence on a player, it isn't fair. But in a normal social conflict, the player's gonna know, and the character is ideally going to know something is up, too.

One suggestion I liked from an RPG.Net discussion about this very subject was that you leave the single Consequence track for the lower levels of Consequences, but then break out the highest slot (-6) into three separate -6 slots: one for each Stress track. The fiddling -2 or -4 Consequences will wash away soon enough, so there's no real reason to duplicate those for each Stress track. This would effectively give everyone another two -6 slots. I'm conflicted about whether it would be more appropriate to triplicate the Extreme (-8) slot instead, with its commensurate requirements of changing Aspects.

[UmbraLux]

You people need to _never stop feeding me with new games to plunder mechanics from.  ;_;

Hehe, if you like FATE and Social Combat in games you really need to read Diaspora's version.  To give it a superficial overview, it introduces zones to social combat and the ability to move opponents through zones.  So if zone 1 is "Agreement" and zone 5 is "Utter Opposition" with / to some idea you have to convince by moving their position as much as by inflicting consequences.  It gives Social Combat some tactical variety as well as allowing you to convince someone without inflicting consequences.  End of digression.   

[Mr. Death]

Not all diseases make it hard to fight. One of the best martial artists I know has epilepsy. And many diseases have latency periods or otherwise are not always active. But if you get attacked while your disease consequence is not active, you still suffer from reduced chances of victory.

It would make it harder to fight if he had a seizure right in the middle of it. But those long-term, life-long diseases would more likely be reflected in a character aspect than a consequence anyway.

And a haircut is a lasting physical alteration to a character that can reasonably result from a physical attack and that can be important to some characters (those that care about their looks). It can't always just be stress. Check out tvtropes if you want examples.

Believe me, I'm familiar with TV Tropes (addicted is probably more true, why do you think I used that term in the first place?). In fact, I helped put together its page for this very game

I guess that example falls to GM preference. Sure, a White Court pretty boy might be all kinds of put out that my character ruined his coif, but I'd feel cheated if my character made an attack successful enough to cause a consequence and then couldn't even tag it in any way. (Presuming here that the characters being at the sword-swinging stage means social combat is out of reach)

[Sanctaphrax]

You can tag a haircut. Distress and anger make it hard to fight.

A disease could easily be a consequence, and it could easily be such that it would not meaningfully affect the character in a fight.

If you don't like diseases, think of internal injuries. Some types of brain damage are totally meaningless in a fight, but obviously a beating can damage someone's brain.

Point is, as soon as you start thinking outside the box you have to accept that consequences are a lot like Fate Points or stuff doesn't make sense.

[JoshTheValiant]

A disease could easily be a consequence, and it could easily be such that it would not meaningfully affect the character in a fight.

Point is, as soon as you start thinking outside the box you have to accept that consequences are a lot like Fate Points or stuff doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure I buy that a disease would be a Consequence from anything but magic (which I think is more likely to be the result of thaumaturgy, and likely a maneuver at that) or an infection... which I would model as an environmental attack against the character's Endurance, with an invocation against ANOTHER existing Consequence reflecting the fact that an open wound in a swamp is a bad plan, sir.

In the end, the fact that it doesn't make sense is sort of the reason for this discussion.  I'd also like to point out that I offered a potential solution to the logic problem here by suggesting alternative stress/consequence limits/models.

Also potentially worth a look is Mutants and Masterminds' toughness injury model, which is that every wound taken reduces the character's effective toughness against future injuries, and every time you take a hit, you check to see if your character can keep going.  Eventually, penalties build up high enough that it's simply impossible to beat a roll, and down you go.  Too much die rolling for my tastes, but it's another option.

[Sanctaphrax]

It'll make sense to you as soon as you accept that consequences don't really exist inside the game world.

A character doesn't have a severe consequence, he has a BROKEN LEG or is PERCEIVED TO BE A PEDOPHILE.

And he might not even know that he has that consequence.

If I'm in a social conflict with someone who has no idea who I am and I don't yet know about the smear campaign against me and there's no audience, my reputation as a pedophile logically shouldn't matter. But mechanically, it does.

Because the consequence is a mechanical construct that exists in the parts of the game that are not part of the game-world.

They're like Fate Points in that way. Having spent all of your FP makes you weak and vulnerable, but FP don't correspond to anything within the game's universe.

[Silverblaze]

I get all of your points, and if your table opts to drop Social Conflict, great. I have sort of dropped it for the sake of my players, too, none of whom built characters for it.

But this sounds like a breakdown of some sort. Like the narrative equivalent of promising "I won't kill you - just lay down and stop resisting" and then killing the person while they are prone. Because there are unspoken stakes in the conflict, it's not really a genuine conflict. A conflict resolution is supposed to be the end of that conflict. Psyching someone out or talking them down from a conflict *should* be an effective way of avoiding a physical conflict. But if you take someone out socially - get them to acquiesce - only to launch an easily-won physical confrontation, I think that's a major disruption in the way the game is supposed to be played. Am I missing something?

Edit: also, look at Robespierre. Finest orator of the French Revolution. Denounced enemies of the People, and his own, sending them all to La Guillotine. Master of the Social Conflict. And when it came time for him to go, the first thing his opponents did was shoot him right in the mouth so he couldn't talk anymore. No more Social Conflicts for Robespierre. Edit 2: okay, there is some uncertainty about whether he shot his jaw off in a failed suicide attempt, or if someone else shot him.

I see you points and understand.

Responding to the bolded section.

But the system "allows" for it and I do not care for it.

It'll make sense to you as soon as you accept that consequences don't really exist inside the game world.

A character doesn't have a severe consequence, he has a BROKEN LEG or is PERCEIVED TO BE A PEDOPHILE.

And he might not even know that he has that consequence.

If I'm in a social conflict with someone who has no idea who I am and I don't yet know about the smear campaign against me and there's no audience, my reputation as a pedophile logically shouldn't matter. But mechanically, it does.

Because the consequence is a mechanical construct that exists in the parts of the game that are not part of the game-world.

They're like Fate Points in that way. Having spent all of your FP makes you weak and vulnerable, but FP don't correspond to anything within the game's universe.

No it really doesn't make sense.  I do realize FP's and consequences don't really exist in game..nor do concessions/declarations etc.  Those are tools for the narrative yes? 

If I don't know I'm "percieved to be X" why should it effect me or be taggable?  Why does it make it harder for me at all?  Why can I not fight on through this perception of myself?  Does being embarassed or feeling bad for someone take away my will to fight on or to live?  I know that's just the system.  I accept it if I'm in a game where such rules apply.  I'm just saying I don't care for it.

What we have here is  vast chasm in different play styles.  My group will happily curb/modify/jury-rig/house-rule/etc. a system until it fits the group.  If we need to hammer to many changes in, we simply don't play it.  I think the system overall is fine, I enjoy games with more breakdowns in this group's playstyle.  I just think this part breaks down pretty hard for me.

[Sanctaphrax]

It isn't taggable unless it being tagged makes sense and it doesn't make it harder for you to fight if it isn't taggable. It just reduces the semi-existent plot shield that your character has.

Doesn't everyone house-rule where necessary?

There are plenty of valid playstyle objections to social combat rules, but I don't think this is one.

[Orladdin]

...
If I don't know I'm "percieved to be X" why should it effect me or be taggable?  Why does it make it harder for me at all?  Why can I not fight on through this perception of myself?  Does being embarassed or feeling bad for someone take away my will to fight on or to live?  I know that's just the system.  I accept it if I'm in a game where such rules apply.  I'm just saying I don't care for it.
...

Actually, yes, this is a specific instance where it would.  One of the largest social stigmas in recent decades is "Perceived as a Pedophile".  There doesn't even need to be any evidence to that effect to condemn someone utterly in every possible social situation in a community.  People up and move their entire life,  states or even countries away, to escape that black mark-- even if they are in the right.  And you don't have to even know if you've been declared as such right away.  People will eye you strangely, not give you the time of day, and tell you to get out of their store with no explanation. 
And why shouldn't people?  They believe they're protecting their children.  They may be wrong, but from their point of view, "Better safe than sorry, right?"  So it's very real.

The other side of this coin is: does it make for a good game?

My answer sides with you: no.  If you, as a player, don't know there is such a consequence or how to clear it, it can breed frustration.  The separation point is whether you, as a player, know how/why things are happening.  If the character doesn't know, it's narrative depth.  If the player doesn't know, its a shitty GM.  The system doesn't come into it.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think it's possible for a player to not know about a consequence that his character has. My example was meant to refer to a character who didn't know, not a player.