So my players despise the Social Combat rules...

[magnificentmomo]

Solar brainfucker does this yes. Just like the Solar Daiklave monkey comes in and ruines shit on the same level.


If his conviction is 3 to get your first new intimacy you would have to erode his one about the people being the backbone and install the new one, that is 6 successful attacks, a presence attack in long ticks takes an equivelent of 4 minutes. So it would take him at least 25 minutes just to make the first new inimacy, if there weren't any willpower defenses.

 

[Lord Kamina]

Solar brainfucker does this yes. Just like the Solar Daiklave monkey comes in and ruines shit on the same level.
If his conviction is 3 to get your first new intimacy you would have to erode his one about the people being the backbone and install the new one, that is 6 successful attacks, a presence attack in long ticks takes an equivelent of 4 minutes. So it would take him at least 25 minutes just to make the first new inimacy, if there weren't any willpower defenses.

This. Not to say that the DB would probably have some intimacy (maybe even a magical one) against anathema.

 

[Persell]

I agree that the system is not perfect, but it is better than
Joe:I make my diplomacy roll.


GM: Ok Jim, your character realizes that Joe is a great guy after all.


Jim: WTF?! You have GOT to be kidding me.

I think you are oversimplifying the matter. There are tons of social conflict rules around that are neither baroque like the ones of exalted, nor do they fail as much or leave a bad aftertaste in the mouth.

 

[Unforgiven]

Well I personally kinda like the social combat rules, though we rarely use it in our campaign..


Our storyteller usually lets us roleplay it out with the npc. If he feels the conversation was not convincing enough, he will let us roll to see and determine how well we got our point across, because although we might not always be persuasive, our characters perhaps are. But it's mainly the effort that counts. It's more of a supplement for certain situations, and a guideline to determine how good are characters really are in persuading people..


The fact that there are rules for them, doesn't mean you always have to use them. Our storyteller recognizes that allowing players to use them against other players, or having npc's use them to brainwash us is generally a bad bad thing.. No player enjoys having his character changed, or his character's personality ripped to shreds..


So we mostly only use it to emphasize our persuasiveness to npc's.

 

[Moonsilver]

Social combat is fine as long as you strictly GM it. Make sure it only happens when you want it to happen. Players in my game cannot just start social combat, they have to ask, and if I don't want them to add another king to their list of followers it is not allowed.


Equally they know they can ask me “can I go and speak to Mask of Winters, without him trying to brainwash meâ€

 

[Persell]

Social combat is fine as long as you strictly GM it. Make sure it only happens when you want it to happen. Players in my game cannot just start social combat, they have to ask, and if I don't want them to add another king to their list of followers it is not allowed.
Equally they know they can ask me “can I go and speak to Mask of Winters, without him trying to brainwash meâ€

 

[Moonsilver]

Well this works both ways. Springing a mega social attack on Mr No Social is no different from springing a mega combat attack on Mr Social.


Likewise, players know they don’t have to start Social Combat, they can just try some big dice pool rolls, or just speak to the person (whoah non dice rp). It possible to get the result you want without full blown SC.


But I take your point, if I had a Mr Social player I would be more concerned they were missing out. But I really see this as no different from physical Combat, if you as the GM allow someone to always solve a situation by fighting that is poor GMing. Likewise if SC can always be used to win the day it’s poor GMing. Unless you are having and arena match scenario or something.


I have yet to say (only one scenario so far) “no you can’t use social combatâ€

 

[Nightmare of Fallen Kings]

Hey everyone, I just signed up for the site, though I've been reading the forums for a while now.


In my experience, Social Combat has caused more problems than it's alleviated. The problem with SC in my games has been that eventually the "Solar Brainfucker", as Safim so aptly put it, turns their brainfucking on the rest of the party. Now while that is kind of cool in the way of the great curse manifesting itself as the character begins to use his abilities to be a tyrant rather than a friend, it's NOT cool that it begins to piss all the other players off since they are essentially no longer in control of their characters. Players don't want to show up and have someone else tell them what their character thinks or feels, that takes the control of their character out of their hands and in my experience nothing pisses them off faster. In the end, we run games for the enjoyment of all involved, so when it stops being fun because 1 player can control everyone, we've defeated our purpose.


I tend to keep most of the social interactions in my games to roleplay. A character with high social stats still benefits as it allows them insights that the other characters don't have into the motivations and potential weak points to be exploited of other characters and NPCs. When Ivory Peacock initiates SC and forces Tai-ton to feel a certain way, Tai-ton's player isn't very happy, and rightly so. When Ivory Peacock instead starts blackmailing Tai-ton because he found out Tai-ton has been hiding a Dragon Blooded lover from the rest of the circle, that opens up fun new roleplay for both players and neither of them feel marginalized. I try to make sure that being a "social monkey" is still well worth while in my games, as it allows the characters to pull some pretty amazing things socially, but it's still governed by logic. In my games being a social character will certainly allow you to insinuate yourself into the local bureaucracy, learn things none of the other characters would have been able to glean, and even, over time, turn avid enemies into staunch allies. What it WON'T let you do is assassinate the prince, knock up the princess, then sit the king down for a quick chat and walk away as his best friend.


In the end what it comes down to is knowing your players, and knowing what you can handle as a storyteller. If you know your players hate SC, then don't use it. Find a system that both you and your players can enjoy without making social skills useless. It all boils down to WW's golden rule, "If you and your players don't like something, CHANGE IT!"

 

[Persell]

The problem with SC in my games has been that eventually the "Solar Brainfucker"' date=' as Safim so aptly put it, turns their brainfucking on the rest of the party. [/quote']Maybe I just live in a happy world where my players would never and have never dreamed of doing something like this against the will of another player, is this really that common a problem? If that happened in a game I ran the first time I'd let it slide but tell the player that its not cool after the game. The second time he would be warned in the game and the action would not be allowed. Third time the player would be asked to leave and not come back. Just that simple. I don't believe that a player should ever lose control of their character in such a way. A villain using some sort of magic to warp the minds of the characters is one thing and can be used to set up an interesting plot point but one player should never be allowed to something like that to another.

 

[magnificentmomo]

You have to be careful when trying to use logic to govern what a social Exalt can do, because just look at what a melee Exalt can do. It's completely and totally illogical. I can understand if a fellow player's character in character have motive to do this, but if it is obvious the guy is just being a douche then it isn't cool. Have you ever had characters, in character, argue and come to a duel? Maybe one gets a little injured? Same thing.


You would think twice before making a social character without at least a few dots in some combat ability for survivability, maybe you should take the same approach to your combat character.


I understand everyone just wanting to have fun, and I agree with it. I enjoy good character interaction, and conflict can be that. It just depends on your playstyle and the playstyle of your group.

 

[Nightmare of Fallen Kings]

There's a big difference between two characters arguing and ending up hurting each other and one character controlling another with his social and mental influences. Namely that in one case, both players are in full control of their characters, and choose to roleplay the scenario, and in the other ONE player takes control of both characters, thus depriving the other player of the experience he came to play. That is a HUGE difference. Saying that social and physical combat are essentially the same is like saying that an octopus and a lemur are the essentially the same because they're both animals. Yes, they're both animals, but they're VASTLY different animals with very very little in common. The problem with SC in my eyes (and in those of my players, whom I've had this discussion with and we all decided against using SC.) is that it literally forces players to roleplay their characters in a way they don't want to. That is a line i won't cross in my games. Different storytellers have different styles, and I've had sadistic DMs in D&D that just LOVED to use enchantments to constantly force the player's characters to do things they didn't want to do. That just devolves into the players going "Ok whatever, let me know when I can play my character again." Players come to play the game, not the watch me tell stories about their characters in which they have little to no say. It took the fun out of the game for me, so I won't do it to my players.

 

[magnificentmomo]

You are skewing the scenario. In both cases it is a Roleplaying escalation. Two party characters disagree, be it on what to do, what they did, whathaveyou. It gets to the point where one character pulls out his Exalted fighting power and they duel. This isn't far fetched, it is fully possible, could happen in most stories and does. Say the defender didn't want to fight, but he is forced in, because hey, there is an attack flying at your face. They rough and tumble, one gets pretty injured, has to concede to the others will or leave.


Now in SC. Same argument, same escalation, but now instead of whipping out his Exalted fighting power, he uses his persuasion power. The unnatural mental influence begins to fly, willpower gets blown, maybe an intimacy is formed, maybe nothing happens. When one party member realizes he is losing he could just as easily concede or leave.


I am saying I think it all works fine and dandy if kept in the realm of good role play and not douchebaggery.


On the surface SC can seem a little extreme, but I feel that if given a chance it fits in well. But take that our leave it.

 

[magnificentmomo]

I don't want it to seem that I am trying to say what everything you say is wrong. I am just trying to specify my thoughts on the social combat. I hate arguing on the internet, especially here, so I don't want it to seem like that is what I am trying to do or what is happening.

 

[Persell]

The problem with SC in my games has been that eventually the "Solar Brainfucker"' date=' as Safim so aptly put it, turns their brainfucking on the rest of the party. [/quote']Maybe I just live in a happy world where my players would never and have never dreamed of doing something like this against the will of another player, is this really that common a problem? If that happened in a game I ran the first time I'd let it slide but tell the player that its not cool after the game. The second time he would be warned in the game and the action would not be allowed. Third time the player would be asked to leave and not come back. Just that simple. I don't believe that a player should ever lose control of their character in such a way. A villain using some sort of magic to warp the minds of the characters is one thing and can be used to set up an interesting plot point but one player should never be allowed to something like that to another.

So, you taking away control from the player is better than another player taking control from him... how?


That is just bullshit, must roleplayers live in la la land where the storyteller is ultra powerful, allowed to fudge the dice for the "good of the story" and pull idiotic stuff out of his arse because it has always been so.


You are just one player at the table, you taking control away from someone is as bad as another player character taking it.


It doesn't matter how cool your plot is, you are taking away the player's cool and your plot is not worth that. this is not a novel writing exercise, where the player characters and the players are your bitches to command around, it is a SHARED activity.


Challenge them, screw them, but do not have any illusions that you taking away control would be any better than a social mindfuck from mister eclipse, the other player character.


Okay... sorry for the rant. It is just that this kind of shit really rubs me the wrong way ^^


Anyway, lately I have found that exalted and white wolf in general is crap for running anything but one on one games. They do not have the mechanics to cope with groups and the themes they usually use the mechanics for a way better suited to one on one play.

 

[Nightmare of Fallen Kings]

That is just bullshit, must roleplayers live in la la land where the storyteller is ultra powerful, allowed to fudge the dice for the "good of the story" and pull idiotic stuff out of his arse because it has always been so.

I completely share your view here. Any game I run, I roll in full view for all the players to see. So when I quadruple botch, everyone sees it and Mr. Big-McNastypants-Was-Supposed-to-Scare-the-Piss-Out-of-You takes a header into the rocks in the middle of his monologue. Quite frankly, it's made for a much nicer atmosphere as my players trust me as a GM, and as a result, they never try to fudge their rolls either. I find that open honesty on the part of the Storyteller forges a bond of trust between the players and the GM and leads to a better experience for all. I also have frequent chats with my players about what they like, don't like, would to see more of, etc in my games and that seems to help a lot, not only in keeping my players happy, but in providing a more fun experience for all of us.

I don't want it to seem that I am trying to say what everything you say is wrong. I am just trying to specify my thoughts on the social combat. I hate arguing on the internet, especially here, so I don't want it to seem like that is what I am trying to do or what is happening.

Don't worry, I didn't take it that way It's simply a difference of opinion and storytelling style. No big deal there. It may very well be that your players really like SC, and if that's the case, more power to you for using it. In my case my players hate it (which is fine by me since I'm not a big fan of it either), so I ditched it and winged a more favorable system (for MY players, not necessarily everyone's)  to make both parties happy. I wasn't trying to argue that your point of view was wrong, simply giving my experiences with SC and the views of my players in order to help the person who initially asked for help with social combat. o_ob

 

[Persell]

@Safim  Did you miss the part where I said against the will of another player? Are you really saying that if you had somebody being an ass at your table and trying to impose himself on the group against the wishes of the other players, you'd just let them? "Oh sorry guys, you really should have invested in some SC defense charms...." If Player A wants to chop Player B's character in half with his diaklave just because they can't agree on a course of action, do you allow that too?


Both instances are PvP fights, which I don't allow unless both players agree to it. If both players are okay with it, then I'm fine with it. I talk to the players, find out what they want and go from there. Just like you suggest makes a happy gaming table. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I intended to be originally, but I don't see the situation as taking control away from a player, I see it more as handling a disruptive player that is preventing another player from enjoying them self.


Oh, and where did you pull the "must roleplayers live in la la land where the storyteller is ultra powerful, allowed to fudge the dice for the "good of the story" and pull idiotic stuff out of his arse because it has always been so," bit? From someone else's post? Because if anything like that was implied in mine, it was unintentional. I'm not trying to start a flame war or argue with anyone. My post wasn't directed at any one person, I quoted Nightmare of Fallen Kings because the statement seemed to encapsulate the sentiment of a great deal of posts in this thread, and it rather surprised me to be more or less directly attacked.

 

[Persell]

Man, try reading.


My point is, there is no difference between you taking control away from the player for "the sake of the story" and another player taking it away.


You said:


"I don't believe that a player should ever lose control of their character in such a way. A villain using some sort of magic to warp the minds of the characters is one thing and can be used to set up an interesting plot point but one player should never be allowed to something like that to another."


So, it is ok when you as a storyteller do it, but not ok when someone else does it? That is a huge load of bullshit. You are as bad as the social mindfucker if you do something like that without consent or some social contract between you and your players allowing you to do it. Hence my remark about abusing gamemaster power.

 

[Moonsilver]

This is about the balance between the importance of the role that the players are playing and the importance of the story that is being created.


This is a two way street, the GM should have thought about what his players want to do for his game, what sort of characters do they like to play? But it is also down to the player, who has duty to the story. Everyone has a duty to make it enjoyable.


If this balance is upset too much strife ensues. I think a talk with the players, an understanding of this basic premise is the way forward. As the GM don’t just selectively stop fights or mental domination. Explain why this may happen in advance. Get players to think “does my character fit in here, or is he really meant for another game?â€