A House Rule For Social Combat

[Tedronai]

True.
In the standard two-stunt combo you have +2 stress and +1 accuracy.
In the social attack stunt, you have +2 accuracy.
+2 accuracy is superior to +2 stress.
The resultant difference in average stress is, then, less than that gained by +1 accuracy.
In fact, +2 accuracy being superior to +1 accuracy and +1 stress, the difference is less than that gained by +1 stress, which happens to be the smallest bonus available to an attack.

[ways and means]

But the dynamic changes with zero weapons rating a +2 weapons rating stunt becomes a +1 accuracy (as on a tied roll you still hit) +2 damage on hit. Still inferior to a +2 accuracy stunt but only by a fraction and nearly twice as good as a +1 accuracy stunt. Though truth be told given the non-existent weapons rating of social combat I think +2 social accuracy stunts are balanced, I actually think the stunts were set up that ways to avoid social weapons which would just be thematically odd.

[sinker]

Wait, if +1 accuracy = +2 stress under normal circumstances, and the social stunt provides +2 accuracy, is it not reasonable to assume that an equivalent stunt would be +4 stress?

Going back to Sancta's original post, it seems like a convoluted way to resolve your issue. Adding a weapon value increases the value of zero sum attacks, but it technically doesn't change the value of accuracy in comparison to stress. It seems like a problem with the system. +1 Accuracy < +2 stress, however +1 stress /= +1 accuracy. There's no in-between.

[Sanctaphrax]

Accuracy is never worse than weapon rating, but it isn't always better.

+1 accuracy is sometimes better than +2 stress, if you have a weapon rating to work with and a not-great chance of hitting your target.

(And honestly I'm iffy on the whole notion of stress-adding stunts for Weapons in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.)

Wait, what? Seriously?

Please explain this, in a PM if need be.

PS: If you want social attacks to be generally less powerful than physical ones, you could still use this houserule. Just assign negative weapon ratings to average attacks and be really stingy with positive ratings. The effects of this rule on social conflict speed depend entirely on how it is implemented.

[Mr. Death]

Wait, what? Seriously?

Please explain this, in a PM if need be.

Mainly, I suppose, it's how I've seen such stunts be referenced around these boards as if they were an automatic +2 to stress whenever you're using a weapon. This may not be quite what they are (I admit I haven't looked closely at the stunts in question), but that's the impression I've gotten.

I'll put it this way. The stunt rules wouldn't let you stack a pair of stunts to give yourself Weapon:4 fists, right? Adding a general use (meaning something along the lines of, "When he's using a sword...") Weapons stunt to add stress is just like that, except it only costs one refresh instead of two.

I feel like there shouldn't be such an easy way to double the Weapon rating, and that the character already has a "free" advantage by using a weapon. So maybe they could be narrower, or cost a fate point like Killer Blow, but it doesn't feel right for me that you could basically spend 1 refresh and be always attacking with Weapon:5 attacks.

[sinker]

Accuracy is never worse than weapon rating, but it isn't always better.

It is though. Accuracy functions exactly the same as weapon rating, but also makes it more likely the attack hits. Therefore it is always better. I'm not sure it's twice as good though, which is what frustrates me. Like I said, 1 accuracy is always better than 1 weapon rating, but it's not equal to 2 weapon rating.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Mr. Death: It looks to me like your real problems are not with Weapons stunts adding to stress. They seem to be with the arguable weakness of the Fists skill and with the tendency of some people (including me) to gloss over stunt restrictions in conversations.

Weapons is absolutely not in need of a nerf. Ask ways and means, he seems to be trying to buff Weapons right now.

(Tedronai might be worth talking to here too. IIRC he regards Fists as pathetic.)

@sinker: I already explained how in some situations weapon rating and accuracy are identical. If you want to say that accuracy is always better, you're going to need to disprove what I said somehow.

And for what it's worth, I'd not-rarely pick one accuracy over two stress.

[Jimmy]

Really? You don't think it would last as long?  How about, a bad breakup that ends in the ex badmouthing you to all your mutual friends for months, or someone being accused of paedophilia and losing their teaching job and their reputation and in some cases even their rights for years. Wouldn't those be social consequences?

No, those would be Mental Consequences from a mental conflict. YS clearly gives that as an example on turning a social conflict into a mental one.

[Tedronai]

(Tedronai might be worth talking to here too. IIRC he regards Fists as pathetic.)

The bolded section is true.  The rest remains to be seen.

@sinker: I already explained how in some situations weapon rating and accuracy are identical. If you want to say that accuracy is always better, you're going to need to disprove what I said somehow.

Could you provide a link to those explanations/claims?
I can't think of a non-contrived scenario where 1 accuracy can reasonably assumed to be of no greater value than 1 stress. (given the breadth of relative accuracy result from 2 rolls potentially producing an effective 8 point penalty for the attacker combined with the possibility of FP expenditure on the behalf of the defender to further widen that gap)

No, those would be Mental Consequences from a mental conflict. YS clearly gives that as an example on turning a social conflict into a mental one.

Consequences representing how those in a community view you differently than they otherwise would are clearly not mental in nature.  They are social.
If those same actions resulted in internal changes to the victim, those changes might be mental.

[Jimmy]

Consequences representing how those in a community view you differently than they otherwise would are clearly not mental in nature.  They are social.
If those same actions resulted in internal changes to the victim, those changes might be mental.

I concede, good point. Attacks like that can certainly be directed as mental though, given that I myself have been divorced before and you reach a point where you really dont care what others think but are hit pretty hard by the feeling of frustration and helplessness (since you can't settle it like men and HIT her lol). I think i took a couple of mental consequences that time for sure. I can still see your point though.

[Sanctaphrax]

I can't think of a non-contrived scenario where 1 accuracy can reasonably assumed to be of no greater value than 1 stress. (given the breadth of relative accuracy result from 2 rolls potentially producing an effective 8 point penalty for the attacker combined with the possibility of FP expenditure on the behalf of the defender to further widen that gap)

Here.

The only time that +1 accuracy is better than +1 stress is when you miss by 1 and get more out of a 0-shift hit than you do out of missing. If you don't get anything out of a glancing hit, then +1 accuracy is not better than +1 stress at all.

Kind of an edge case in physical/mental combat, where most attacks have weapon ratings. But it's common in social combat.

PS: YS says that you can treat glancing hits as maneuvers if you so choose, but that seems to be a GM discretion thing.

[UmbraLux]

@sinker: I already explained how in some situations weapon rating and accuracy are identical. If you want to say that accuracy is always better, you're going to need to disprove what I said somehow.

It's already been done.  I'll try to simplify.

1.  Comparing accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio.
2.  Measuring by stress caused.
3.  Accuracy past the success level becomes stress at a 1:1 ratio.
4.  Weapon rating becomes stress at 1:1 if accuracy is high enough.
Conclusion 1:  Accuracy is a must.  If you don't hit, weapon rating doesn't matter.
Conclusion 2:  Excess accuracy is equal to weapon rating in causing stress.

Example:  Splitting 10 points between accuracy and weapon power evenly makes me ineffective against anything with a defense greater than 5.  If Defense is exactly 5 I'll cause 5 stress.  Putting all 10 points in accuracy means I'll still do 5 stress when defense is 5 but I'll also do 4 stress when defense is 6 and 1 stress when defense is 9 - both situations where the 5/5 split does zero stress.

Hopefully that's clear.  If not, please let me know which part isn't understandable and I'll try to explain.

[Mr. Death]

@Mr. Death: It looks to me like your real problems are not with Weapons stunts adding to stress. They seem to be with the arguable weakness of the Fists skill and with the tendency of some people (including me) to gloss over stunt restrictions in conversations.

As I said, I haven't really taken a close look at those stunts, so that might well be the case. When I do see them summed up, most often it's in the sense of something like, "If you're using a broadsword, add +2 to the stress."

I personally don't see the Fists skill as particularly weak--it's useful in that anything it can do, it can do without tools, and I feel that's a fair tradeoff for the relative lack of power.

Weapons is absolutely not in need of a nerf. Ask ways and means, he seems to be trying to buff Weapons right now.

I'm not saying it needs a nerf. What I'm saying is that using Weapons already has a built in advantage of the weapon rating, and adding a stunt to boost the weapon rating even further feels like stacking stunts in a way the RAW doesn't intend. It makes more sense to me to limit it to accuracy stunts, or maybe stress boosting stunts that cost a fate point to use, like Killer Blow.

But that all's got little to do with social conflict, so perhaps we're getting off topic.

[sinker]

1.  Comparing accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio.
2.  Measuring by stress caused.
3.  Accuracy past the success level becomes stress at a 1:1 ratio.
4.  Weapon rating becomes stress at 1:1 if accuracy is high enough.
Conclusion 1:  Accuracy is a must.  If you don't hit, weapon rating doesn't matter.
Conclusion 2:  Excess accuracy is equal to weapon rating in causing stress.

Example:  Splitting 10 points between accuracy and weapon power evenly makes me ineffective against anything with a defense greater than 5.  If Defense is exactly 5 I'll cause 5 stress.  Putting all 10 points in accuracy means I'll still do 5 stress when defense is 5 but I'll also do 4 stress when defense is 6 and 1 stress when defense is 9 - both situations where the 5/5 split does zero stress.

Yeah, this is where I was, but I realize that Sancta is talking about stunts here, which means +1 to accuracy or +2 to weapon rating. In that case, the only instance in which +1 accuracy makes a difference in in those situations where you're only one off, which creates a zero sum attack that doesn't do any stress (or technically have any real effect). So really +2 weapon rating is better than (or equal to) +1 accuracy unless your GM does something about zero sum attacks.

[UmbraLux]

Yeah, this is where I was, but I realize that Sancta is talking about stunts here, which means +1 to accuracy or +2 to weapon rating. In that case, the only instance in which +1 accuracy makes a difference in in those situations where you're only one off, which creates a zero sum attack that doesn't do any stress (or technically have any real effect). So really +2 weapon rating is better than (or equal to) +1 accuracy unless your GM does something about zero sum attacks.

He seems to be comparing accuracy and weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio here:

(click to show/hide)

Suppose I attack, and miss by one. If I have +1 accuracy, I get my weapon rating minus the target's armour in stress.

If I miss by more than one, neither +1 accuracy or +1 weapon rating does anything.

If I hit, both +1 accuracy and +1 weapon rating provide an extra point of stress.

So accuracy and weapon rating are equal in value unless you already have a weapon rating that exceeds the target's armour.

(Unless your GM in his infinite mercy gives you perks when you barely hit someone.)

So by assigning actual weapon values to social attacks, one can make social accuracy better than social damage.

Emphasis added.

If you're comparing accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:2 ratio you've already admitted accuracy is more important. 

From this: 

PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...

  It appears the intent is to make accuracy more important than weapon rating.  I'm simply stating "it already is more important".