[2E] social combat

[Shicato]

I'm just starting my first 2nd Edition Exalted game and for once my players seem to want to all play quite social characters.  While I like the social combat rules between major NPC's, they take too long for mooks.  It feels like it takes away something of the flavor of converting huge numbers of people at once and I'm not convinced by the whole 'it makes no difference how many successes you achieve', in a game which is so heavily based off of the number of success you achieve, it feels a little unfair to tell the social player that that 15 successes has no more impact than 1.  What have other people done with regards to social combat?  Or if there's a thread elsewhere could you redirect me please.


Cheers

 

[memesis]

While I like the social combat rules between major NPC's, they take too long for mooks.

Don't use social combat for mooks.  Use it for major social confrontations.

It feels like it takes away something of the flavor of converting huge numbers of people at once

Making a brave and impressive speech to sway thousands is in theme for social combat.  Roll Performance, look at the average DV, and say (for example) "60% of the crowd is swayed".

I'm not convinced by the whole 'it makes no difference how many successes you achieve', in a game which is so heavily based off of the number of success you achieve, it feels a little unfair to tell the social player that that 15 successes has no more impact than 1.

Social combat is fundamentally different from physical combat in the way "damage" is taken, because human beings CAN refuse to listen, no matter what you say - thousands of years have proved this to be true.  So instead of thinking in terms of a regular fight, where you can just bust through someone's defense, think in terms of political debate or discourse, where a sufficiently determined listener can shut out the speaker.  If he's sufficiently skilled in rhetoric or sufficiently stubborn, it takes him no effort.  If he's not, he must spend Willpower.


Success in social combat comes from finding ways around your opponent's defenses, and arguing on turf he won't resist you on.  Successes DO matter, but only up to the point where your opponent must resist or give in.  After that, it's entirely in his hands.  What higher skill does allow is a better odds when flurrying.

 

[Shicato]

Success in social combat comes from finding ways around your opponent's defenses, and arguing on turf he won't resist you on.  Successes DO matter, but only up to the point where your opponent must resist or give in.  After that, it's entirely in his hands.  What higher skill does allow is a better odds when flurrying.

And yet resisting an argument should be more difficult the more successes are rolled.  I can understand why they did it mechanically because obviously it would be too strong otherwise, but it still feels harsh to say to the player who just made and inspriring attempt to convert somebody and rolled say 12 successes on 10 dice that he refuses your argument because he's a little bit stubborn.  I think that because I'm still trying out the system I might have been overusing the social combat stuff and I might revert back to the old way that if you roll a great deal of successes when making a speech, unless you're doing so with a major NPC then the results of your speech are equal to your successes.

 

[memesis]

And yet resisting an argument should be more difficult the more successes are rolled.

Adolf Hitler was considered a genius of oration.  Adolf Hitler could not convince me that National Socialism is a good idea.  Now I am no rhetorical genius myself, and there's probably more stubborn people out there.  But I know that there are causes I can't be swayed into, regardless.  It's easy to spout aphorisms like "every man has his price", but I know for a fact that there are some arguments I will always refuse, no matter how well put they are.


My point is that there's a line past which natural persuasiveness fails.  This is what unnatural persuasion is meant for.  Unnatural persuasion can blow past such things and use Essence to change hearts and minds.

it still feels harsh to say to the player who just made and inspriring attempt to convert somebody and rolled say 12 successes on 10 dice that he refuses your argument because he's a little bit stubborn.

Who are we talking about converting?  In reality, you can't just change someone's mind if they are going to resist you.  You can't simply force a change of thinking by talking, unless what you are saying would actually change them.  That is the essence of social combat - finding the approach that will make your subject work with you.  Solars have the capability to overwhelm their audiences with magic, but yeah, that's with magic - not just "successes".

 

[wordman]

I'm not convinced by the whole 'it makes no difference how many successes you achieve', in a game which is so heavily based off of the number of success you achieve

Keep your eyes open for charms that make use of these successes. I've used them in an unofficial martial arts style, but I'm not sure any offcial charms do so yet.

 

[Shicato]

My point is that there's a line past which natural persuasiveness fails.  This is what unnatural persuasion is meant for.  Unnatural persuasion can blow past such things and use Essence to change hearts and minds.

And yet even with unnatural persuasiveness all it takes is willpower  to resist and often not that much more than for natural persuasiveness.  

Who are we talking about converting?  In reality, you can't just change someone's mind if they are going to resist you.  You can't simply force a change of thinking by talking, unless what you are saying would actually change them.  That is the essence of social combat - finding the approach that will make your subject work with you.  Solars have the capability to overwhelm their audiences with magic, but yeah, that's with magic - not just "successes".

But here all the excellencies do is add success or dice, and yet they are no more difficult to resist than a standard roll.  So even with magic, it doesn't change that much.  It might be interesting to say for example that if a Solar scores more successes than 3 x the DV of the target then the target is unable to spend willpower to resist the suggestion without some sort of stunt.  Which quite neatly grants the player who has taken the social charms some benefits equivalent to the successes achieved and yet means that if it is someone who the ST does not want to be that easily subverted then they can just use a stunt (or a charm obviously).


Also I do question that people can't be persuaded to do things that they might not otherwise do (and not weakwilled people) by someone who is sufficiently convincing without the use of charms.  Look at salesmen who get people to buy things that they don't want and don't need and can't afford.  Nobody likes to think that they are easily manipulated but people are in general easily manipulated especially in large groups.  That's why people do things they regret.

 

[wordman]

And yet even with unnatural persuasiveness all it takes is willpower  to resist and often not that much more than for natural persuasiveness.

Your players haven't actually used unnatural persuasion yet, have they?


It's true that resisting it "just takes willpower" but, in Exalted, being able to force someone to spend willpower is extremely useful. Typical social combat bascially consists of making several turns of random arguments, backed with charms, to reduce the target to 0 willpower, at which point, you can essentially rewrite much of his brain.


In addition, if you can do this to an opponent for a few rounds before melee breaks out, you will have a serious advantage, particularly in mid- to high-level combat. Willpower control is very important at this level of combat, as it is one of the few real limits on exalts.


Trust me, you'll be glad social defense is "easy". Social combat would be insanely powerful if it wasn't.


Also, keep in mind that, at least as far as I'm concerned, the point of social combat isn't really about "how does a debate end", but for dealing with things like unnatural mental influence, which 1st Edition handled badly (in that it handled it at all). Unless one side or the other is using magic, I typically don't even bother using it.

Look at salesmen who get people to buy things that they don't want and don't need and can't afford.

In Exalted terms, what is happening in this case is that the people are choosing not to spend Willpower. There are legitimate reasons to do this.

 

[memesis]

And yet even with unnatural persuasiveness all it takes is willpower  to resist and often not that much more than for natural persuasiveness.  

How much Willpower does the typical PC target have?  3 dots?  5 dots?  How fast will that go with repeated uses of persuasion Charms?  Unnatural persuasion is not limited by the 2-Willpower-per-scene cap, and even that cap can be bypassed with a stunt.

But here all the excellencies do is add success or dice, and yet they are no more difficult to resist than a standard roll.

The Excellencies are only the starting point for social manipulation.  If you think the Excellencies should be sufficient to just mind-control anyone out there, you are (in my opinion) taking a short-sighted view of social combat, as well as shorting the value of all the other social Charms that exist.


"Then what are the Excellencies for?"  They are for boosting your dice pool when you need it - for example, when you are suffering wound penalties or external penalties (like trying to shout over an angry crowd), or when you really really must hit the target's DV (such as when flurrying social attacks).

Also I do question that people can't be persuaded to do things that they might not otherwise do (and not weakwilled people) by someone who is sufficiently convincing without the use of charms.  Look at salesmen who get people to buy things that they don't want and don't need and can't afford.  Nobody likes to think that they are easily manipulated but people are in general easily manipulated especially in large groups.  That's why people do things they regret.

Do you know why, or how?  Do you know how salesmen operate?  They talk to the customer in the customer's language.  They make social attacks that are in agreement with the customer's Motivation and Intimacies.  They read their customer, looking to see what they can sell them on, then angle their arguments with that in mind.  A middle-aged executive is not going to spend Willpower to resist the salespitch for a luxury car when the salesman is busy telling him that it's good compensation for his manhood.  Nor are a bunch of beer-swilling NASCAR-watching rednecks going to resist when the Republican Party tells them to vote GOP or the gays might get rights.


The key here is to make social attacks that the defender does not want to spend Willpower to resist.  Throwing more dice at the problem isn't the solution.


For further reading, try:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_techniques

 

[Shicato]

It's true that resisting it "just takes willpower" but, in Exalted, being able to force someone to spend willpower is extremely useful. Typical social combat bascially consists of making several turns of random arguments, backed with charms, to reduce the target to 0 willpower, at which point, you can essentially rewrite much of his brain.


In addition, if you can do this to an opponent for a few rounds before melee breaks out, you will have a serious advantage, particularly in mid- to high-level combat. Willpower control is very important at this level of combat, as it is one of the few real limits on exalts.


Also, keep in mind that, at least as far as I'm concerned, the point of social combat isn't really about "how does a debate end", but for dealing with things like unnatural mental influence, which 1st Edition handled badly (in that it handled it at all). Unless one side or the other is using magic, I typically don't even bother using it..

I was just refering to the fact that let's say that for example I hit a heroic mortal and beat his DV by 10 successes, now what happens to that mortal?  I'm guessing, normally he'd be dead or at least severely wounded.  It feels like the player got lucky and that achieved something, but in comparison, lets say I beat the social DV by 10 successes, now what happens?  The defender spends one point of willpower...doesn't feel like such a big thing as when the physical attacker rolled those 10 extra successes.


I'm going to give the system another go and try to save social combat for the more important situations.  I'm thinking about going a bit further with the analogy between social and physical combat and perhaps adding in some kind of soak so that I can allow for people to benefit from better rolls.

 

[Shicato]

How much Willpower does the typical PC target have?  3 dots?  5 dots?

I might have been giving my PC's targets more willpower than they deserve to be fair, but as I pointed out earlier, it's more about the fact that a splashy roll deserves a splashy success which I don't feel the social combat situation is portraying.  

The Excellencies are only the starting point for social manipulation.  If you think the Excellencies should be sufficient to just mind-control anyone out there, you are (in my opinion) taking a short-sighted view of social combat, as well as shorting the value of all the other social Charms that exist.
"Then what are the Excellencies for?"  They are for boosting your dice pool when you need it - for example, when you are suffering wound penalties or external penalties (like trying to shout over an angry crowd), or when you really really must hit the target's DV (such as when flurrying social attacks).

I certainly do not feel that they should be sufficient to mind control anyone nor do I feel that the other charms are useless, but they are for different effects than just being soley persuasive.  For example Hypnotic Tongue Persuasion implants a suggestion that they are not even aware of.   In case I wasn't clear earlier let me be clear that I'm not talking about dealing with other exalts but for dealing with mortals that you need to persuade.

Do you know why, or how?  Do you know how salesmen operate?  They talk to the customer in the customer's language.  They make social attacks that are in agreement with the customer's Motivation and Intimacies.  They read their customer, looking to see what they can sell them on, then angle their arguments with that in mind.  A middle-aged executive is not going to spend Willpower to resist the salespitch for a luxury car when the salesman is busy telling him that it's good compensation for his manhood.  Nor are a bunch of beer-swilling NASCAR-watching rednecks going to resist when the Republican Party tells them to vote GOP or the gays might get rights.
The key here is to make social attacks that the defender does not want to spend

Sure it's easy to sell a car to someone who wants to buy one, but what about selling the car to someone who doesn't want to buy one that's when it becomes a situation where the successes become important.  Let's say the car salesmen is trying to sell a car to someone who would have to take a reduction in lifestyle to afford it.  An attack that scores 1 success over their DV results is as impressive an arguement as an attack that nets 10 successes?  It just doesn't feel right to me.


As I said earlier, mechanically it might be necessary but it just plain feels wrong.  I might try experimenting with ways of making social combat similar to physical combat with some form of soak.

 

[memesis]

doesn't feel like such a big thing as when the physical attacker rolled those 10 extra successes.
...


I'm thinking about going a bit further with the analogy between social and physical combat

The fallacy that I believe you are committing is to assume that social and physical combat must be the same, or more similar than they are, and you're doing so in order to satisfy some desire to see more effectiveness come from more dice.


Persuasiveness and physical confrontation are not at all the same in terms of how someone is "damaged".  To the extent that you are insisting that they be similar, you are ignoring the realities of human psychology.  You're certainly entitled to do so, it's your game.  Just keep in mind that among real people, this is not how things work.

 

[Samiel]

I certainly do not feel that they should be sufficient to mind control anyone nor do I feel that the other charms are useless, but they are for different effects than just being soley persuasive.  For example Hypnotic Tongue Persuasion implants a suggestion that they are not even aware of.   In case I wasn't clear earlier let me be clear that I'm not talking about dealing with other exalts but for dealing with mortals that you need to persuade.

This is not actually a problem, so long as the ST roleplays the NPCs properly with their intimacies, motivations and general outlooks in mind. As a rule of thumb, assume that extras will only spend more than 1 willpower if the attack defies their motivation*, named NPCs will spend if the attack hits their intimacies, and heroic mortals and upwards can spend as they please.


By all means, this will be defied in some situations, but it clears up most of the issue with social combat. If a solar walks into a town and he declares to the people that if they buy his book, it will lead them to success and comfort, and beats their extra MDVs, then they will be inclined to buy the book as long as they feel they won't be hindered by doing so. I.E., the salesman has conned them into spending money for nothing. If the book is too expensive, then as with real life most will refuse, as it would cost them more than they think they will get back from it.


With regard to similarities to normal combat, it's important to note that successful combat removes an enemy, whereas successful social combat takes the enemy and makes an ally of them.


Social combat cannot be more powerful than it is, or it will be unrealistic and overpowered, and the game balance will suffer for it. Combat characters can kill people and perhaps accrue armies through distinction, but the Eclipse only has to enter a court, buy successes and roll well, and he owns a kingdom. Without the cap** on willpower expenditure, the game stops working as soon as someone gets good with social combat (and they can start that way); either the player wins outright, or the ST assigns spurious defence to NPCs and extras to save any sense or feeling of challenge.


As things stand, a character can frequently convince people to do things within the space of a scene. If you want to convince someone of something completely antithetical to their beliefs, you'll have to be a wormtongue and follow them around, whispering poison in their ears for more than 30 minutes before you convince them.


Or did you want all such dramatic events to resolve so swiftly as to deny flair?


*Which for most extras involves living a prosperous or simply stable life


**Which, as we have discussed, can be surmounted through charms or stunts

 

[Jukashi]

But the Dawn only has to enter a king's court, buy successes and roll well, and he owns a kingdom. Through right of conquest.

 

[Shicato]

The fallacy that I believe you are committing is to assume that social and physical combat must be the same, or more similar than they are, and you're doing so in order to satisfy some desire to see more effectiveness come from more dice.
Persuasiveness and physical confrontation are not at all the same in terms of how someone is "damaged".  To the extent that you are insisting that they be similar, you are ignoring the realities of human psychology.  You're certainly entitled to do so, it's your game.  Just keep in mind that among real people, this is not how things work.

I'm not so much concerned about the dice or even to what extent Exalted mirrors reality but rather that the players of social characters don't feel shortchanged when their detailed and well thought out argument doesn't work despite all the effort they put in just because to resist social attacks one must merely spend willpower.  


I'm not advocating that social attacks deal damage merely that there should be some scale of how well one does rather than just pass or fail.  I might be slightly hurt if some one called me a name but if that person were to detail my physical and mental shortcomings in detail that would obviously have a far greater effect.  If someone told me that I should believe that the earth was flat simply because "well look at the sun..." Whereas if someone spoke with passion on how the earth must be flat because of how the sun moved I'd be much more inclined to listen to the second person.


In this way a very well put argument should have a stonger effect on than a decently put argument.


Exalted is an epic game, to say that a Zenith who specialised in converting people could not make an awe inspiring speech about how great the Unconquered Sun was which would lead to instant conversion on the behalf of the villagers to me hurts the flavor of the game.


I'm kind of going off topic in a big way but presence and presentation make a big difference in how people respond to arguments.  The arguements themselves are not as convincing There's a great example of this in how people reacted to the televised debates between Nixon and Kennedy.  Basically, because Nixon was sick and looked bad on TV, the vast majority of those who watched the debate on the telly, felt that Kennedy had obviously won, while a majority of those who listened to the debate on the radio felt that Nixon had won.


http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/K/htm ... -nixon.htm

 

[Shicato]

As a rule of thumb, assume that extras will only spend more than 1 willpower if the attack defies their motivation*, named NPCs will spend if the attack hits their intimacies, and heroic mortals and upwards can spend as they please.

That seems like a good rule of thumb I might try using that and see what happens next session.  I was thinking about not allowing extra's to spend willpower but that doesn't work either as then they could just be ordered around too easily.


Cheers

 

[Samiel]

Exalted is an epic game, to say that a Zenith who specialised in converting people could not make an awe inspiring speech about how great the Unconquered Sun was which would lead to instant conversion on the behalf of the villagers to me hurts the flavor of the game.

Remember that the Zenith has just stunted, and thus the ST can declare that he can ignore the willpower cap for the attack. Also, it's a matter of taste, but rather than seeing a zenith stand on a box, succeed without incident, and step down, I'd rather to see a dynamic between some uppity spokesperson from the crowd or the local monarch and the Zenith. In this case, it's truly a social battle, with the fight being played out over multiple ticks and actions. Thus, one can whittle at the loyalty (Mass social combat "willpower) of the crowd by stunting ones attacks to work around the defences of the onlookers, until they are swayed and the monarch is carried away to be dumped in a lake or something.


It's a matter of taste, as I said, but it does allow the existing, reasonably robust system to be used for the effect you desire without introducing any changes.

As a rule of thumb, assume that extras will only spend more than 1 willpower if the attack defies their motivation*, named NPCs will spend if the attack hits their intimacies, and heroic mortals and upwards can spend as they please.

That seems like a good rule of thumb I might try using that and see what happens next session.  I was thinking about not allowing extra's to spend willpower but that doesn't work either as then they could just be ordered around too easily.


Cheers

I aim to please, I hope it works out for you!