A House Rule For Social Combat

[Ophidimancer]

Social attacks have weapon ratings. The weapon rating of a social attack is determined by the reasonableness of the attack and by how well that attack fits its target's character.

So, forum. Do you think that this is a good idea?

After thinking about this for awhile I think I can articulate both what bothers me about it and suggest a solution as well.

I think it bothers me because it's a little too vague and subjective.  Coming from someone who remembers the arguments about Paradigm from Mage the Ascension, I try not to encourage game stallers like that.

What I suggest is that any Aspects on both the attacker's and defender's side that support the argument act as a point of Weapon rating and any Aspects that detract from the argument act as a point of Armor.  Mechanically it might be easier to just tally up pro Aspects and con Aspects and just use the final difference as Weapon or Armor.

I know this isn't really that much more objective than what you suggested at first, but it relies on Aspects, which is a critical mechanic of the FATE system and something all the players are used to dealing with anyway.

What do you think?

[CottbusFiles]

I have recently had a conversation about social combat.  I think I like the fact that it can solve an arguement.  I also think it is kind of scary.  Dice rolls can completely change the way a character thinks ("Join the Dark Side" "Change your political party or religion" "Broccoli in fact does taste good") and the player has to deal with that.

What is the problem with this?

[Silverblaze]

What is the problem with this?

You seriously have no problem with someone being able to change core concepts of your character with a few dice rolls?

Lets say you are playing a Wizard of the White Council.  You also happen to be a strong advocate of PETA.  You also think chivalry is not dead.

In a few games (or in theory a few social combats in one game) a social combat expert now has you convinced breaking laws of magic is fine.  PETA in fact stands for People Eating Tasty Animals...or at least it does afte a few rapport rolls.  Also, now chivalry is dead, your girlfriend is sorta pissed.

This is way more powerful than bluff checks and sense motive checks or diplomacy checks in the D20 system. 

I think roleplaying over a large period of time should be able to slowly shape another character's thought processes and behavior.  I think events in games should change characters outlook on life.  Certainly not a few rolls or a social combat.

That is my problem with it.

[Tedronai]

This is way more powerful than bluff checks and sense motive checks or diplomacy checks in the D20 system. 

You never tried to convince the rampaging Great Wyrm that it was actually a fluffy bunny and should start acting like one before people get confused, did you?

[Mr. Death]

I think, Silverblaze, that you're thinking more of mental consequences. I don't see how a social consequence would change how you think, so much as how you might act or how people see you.

A social consequence wouldn't make the PETA activist suddenly become a meat eater, but it might make him feel really embarrassed about pontificating at the neighborhood barbecue and keep quieter about it. Or it might make his friends think he's not chivalrous, but just whipped.

You'd need to really mess with someone's brain to change how they actually think.

My question is, how do you determine or limit the weapon rating? Is it skill based, or does anyone with a megaphone suddenly start hurling Weapon:5 social attacks by virtue of volume?

Personally, I'd be in favor of removing Social consequences entirely, for reasons I've gone over before (in short, it makes zero sense to me that it's easier to take you out in a fist fight because you got drunk and embarrassed yourself last week). Instead, make them just temporary aspects with a duration up to the GM's discretion.

[CottbusFiles]

You seriously have no problem with someone being able to change core concepts of your character with a few dice rolls?

Lets say you are playing a Wizard of the White Council.  You also happen to be a strong advocate of PETA.  You also think chivalry is not dead.

In a few games (or in theory a few social combats in one game) a social combat expert now has you convinced breaking laws of magic is fine.  PETA in fact stands for People Eating Tasty Animals...or at least it does afte a few rapport rolls.  Also, now chivalry is dead, your girlfriend is sorta pissed.

This is way more powerful than bluff checks and sense motive checks or diplomacy checks in the D20 system. 

I think roleplaying over a large period of time should be able to slowly shape another character's thought processes and behavior.  I think events in games should change characters outlook on life.  Certainly not a few rolls or a social combat.

That is my problem with it.

In all of this cases i can simply walk away from the argument if i don't want to risk it. It also gives social characters a lot of power, something that normaly is the tuf of combat monsters.

Have a look at Burning Wheels Duel of Wits to see where i am coming from.

[Mr. Death]

Also, changing the core concepts of a character isn't something that happens with a few dice rolls--that's the realm of an extreme consequence. Even a Severe consequence is temporary and will pass eventually. At minimum, you'd have to make either 4 solid successful attacks in a row (plenty of time to back out) or suffer an absurdly overwhelming hit that goes 7 or more shifts over your track (and even then, you could soak it with a pair of other consequences instead) before you take an Extreme consequence.

[Tedronai]

Even a Severe consequence is temporary and will pass eventually.

And is chosen by the player of the character taking the consequence, and thus does not necessarily reflect the goal of the attack in any meaningful way.

[Becq]

Also, even if you somehow decided to take an extreme consequence like "Gosh, Biff's right: I should give him my house", then you still have the option of buying out of the ensuing invoke-for-effect-based compel.  In the case of lesser consequences, odds are good that you recover from them at some point before escrow closes.

But it seems much more likely that the homeowner in question would simply walk out of the argument to begin with (ie, conceed the conflict with some measure of embarrassment).

[Sanctaphrax]

Like I said, there are limits. Convincing someone to convert to your religion will be inside those limits sometimes and outside them other times.

What do you think?

Won't work.

I thought of that and rejected it already, actually.

Because "number of Aspects" isn't really the important thing. Not all Aspects are created equal. If I'm threatening to kill the love of your life, who I have hostage, then that ought to be more than +1 stress to Intimidation attacks.

Also, Aspects should not have passive mechanical effects.

Social combat has another huge problem.  If I (the character) don't want to be convinced and I (the character) am unreasonable...I (the character) can just walk away.  I (the character) can plug my ears.  I (the character) can pee on your leg.  I (the character) can up and shoot you in the face.  All of this is a generally good way to end a social combat. 

Being very unreasonable totally ruins social combat.

That's not a problem. If you don't want to participate in social interaction, you don't have to. It's just that you probably want to, because it's the best way to accomplish many goals. Any social system that did not model that would be a failure.

[sinker]

So I don't have a problem with the current way, and here's why.

The system already has a way to make arguments in which you have a greater investment take more time. If someone has an investment in an argument, then they are more likely to take consequences to try to stay in the fight. This will naturally lengthen the conflict. If I don't care what the end result of the conflict is, then when I take enough stress to necessitate a consequence, I will simply concede. This shortens the conflict, and gives me some say as to how the conflict ends (which prevents others from re-writing my character, just because I don't want burgers for lunch).

Additionally if you're clear about the stakes and each party's goals in the conflict, then that naturally limits the end result. If we're arguing about what to have for lunch and our goals are clearly outlined (I want to go here, and you want to go there), when one of us succeeds then the result must pass the reasonableness test with the table.

[Sanctaphrax]

The objective is not to make more important social conflicts longer. Why would we want to do that?

[Ophidimancer]

Because "number of Aspects" isn't really the important thing. Not all Aspects are created equal. If I'm threatening to kill the love of your life, who I have hostage, then that ought to be more than +1 stress to Intimidation attacks.

I see what you mean, but on the other hand, if something is that crucial to a character's concept, it makes sense that it would be touched upon by multiple Aspects, no?

Still, I'm not sure I like assigning Weapon ratings to different arguments.  A good debater is going to be Maneuvering, Assessing, and Declaring Aspects to tag while formulating their arguments anyway, right?  Is that a good enough representation of the art of debate and persuasion for you?

[Sanctaphrax]

Is that a good enough representation of the art of debate and persuasion for you?

What does that have to do with anything?

The idea of this house rule is to create a mechanical difference between reasonable and unreasonable social attacks. To make intimidation easier when you use it against people you could splatter and harder when you use it against people you might not be able to take.

[Jimmy]

I think that if the social conflict in question is that important that it can change your core concepts and beliefs...this should NOT be down to a few dice rolls, it should be roleplayed. The Social Conflict rules are in place for a different reason than what's been used as most of the examples. They're for when you want to bluff your way past that bouncer to get into a nightclub. They're for when you want to stare down Mr Hardboiled Detective On Your Arse. They're for when you want to achieve objectives that rely not only on you having a good idea or plan to out socialise an objective and but also on your character's ability to pull it off.

You need to keep the attention of the casino floor boss while your team mates pick his pocket for the vault room door key and then give them enough time to crack the safe? Engage in a social conflict with him, where taking him out means you got him, or being taken out means he loses patience with you and shoves you aside to continue on his rounds, or gets suspicious about why you're talking dribble with him.

Taking consequences is to represent the amount of effort you're willing to put into it. You've begun to doubt your own abilties or starting to feel like you can't contribute to the team as much. You lose your cool etc. The use of Aspects can be used to represent the reasonable social advantage you're suggesting. The bonus to intimidate due to having a hostage - used either as a tag or a compel of He has my daughter! Aspect. Your opponent is also Big and Scary!? hey that can be tagged or have fate points spent on too. No need for weapon ratings for social conflicts when there are already rules in place to reflect this.