So my players despise the Social Combat rules...

[Hanat-Osul]

... and I, ever-accommodating ST, endeavor to please them.


The rules that seemed to bother people the most were the idea of using "Dodge MDV" to just ignore someone (socially inappropriate) and DMDV being consistently higher than PMDV. The idea I have been kicking around to resolve this is to make DMDV "Mental Defense" (applicable against unnatural mental influence) and PMDV "Social Defense" (applicable against normal mental influence). The idea is to strip social combat down to the bare essentials of passive defenses and basic "attack" rolls when persuasion can't or shouldn't be accomplished by roleplaying alone. This will obviously screw with Charm trees, but I'm sure I can adjudicate that on a case-by-case basis.


In general, though, what pitfalls do you see arising out of doing things this way? How do YOU use social combat - if at all - in your games?

 

[wordman]

I have not used social combat extensively, so I'm talking out of my ass a bit here; however, having read and observed, it seems to me that social combat is a design idea taken to far.


The problem it seemed to be trying to solve is this: in 1E, there was really no consistent system for defending against mental manipulation. The handful of effects that hypnotized, dominated, possessed or planted suggestions all had their own mechanics and it was kind of a mess.


As a solution to this problem, the 2E social combat system seems a bit like a bazooka against a gnat. I think your approach (i.e. providing some static value against which magical mental effects are compared) is really all that is needed.


I do think the concepts of Motivations and Intimacies are fairly cool, and this system messes with them slightly, but not so much that hand-waving can't fix.


To me, using social combat for events that don't involve charms is not very useful and better handled with a combination of role-playing and ST awareness of social stats of the participants. I'm also not sure I liked the idea that social combat in 2E is essentially "here, let me force you to spend willpower". And I have yet to see the use of "ticks" for social interaction be anything but a hindrance and cause for the focus of the game to switch to dice instead of role-playing.


Anyway, in answer to your question, I think your changes should factor in Motivation and Intimacies in some way (i.e. simple bonuses to defense). Keeping both of them as concepts will probably allow more charms to be used without as much tinkering.

 

[wordman]

One other thing.


I mentioned a long time ago on this board an idea I've always liked for social skills, which is probably very useful under this slimmed down system. Basically, the idea is to keep social interactions at a role-playing level, but allow characters with high social skills to retcon things.


For example, it's likely that an social-fu exalt will have higher social skills than the person who is playing them. So, suppose during an important conversation with NPCs, the player says something inadvertently inappropriate. The ST can say, "your character, with his high Socialize, would know that that remark would cause offense because of X, Y and Z. Do you still want to make that comment?" Then let the player do what he wants. So, you still let high social skills matter, but you are still having dialog instead of rolling dice.


Similarly, another character with high Bureaucracy might be observing the conversation, and get passed notes during the conversation like "when NPC A said X, you detect an undertone that suggests a non-obvious relationship between A and B" or something similar.


Also, certain skills just flat out provide contextual information that others don't have. The best example of this is in a game like Shadowrun, with its Etiquette (Street) skill or similar "streetwise" skills. If the PC's run into a guy with tattoos, for example, they all notice the tats but the guy with the high skill immediately knows that the tat of the spiderweb means the guy has been in prison and the tear tat means he killed somebody.

 

[syys]

The social combat rules are really unnecessary, and rather poorly thought out. For all social or mental attacks, I use an attack roll against just one MDV, (Willpower + Integrity + applicable specialties + Essence)/2. The defense can be stunted as usual, and one can channel virtues and use Integrity excellencies.


Other modifications to MDV are +/-1 if the suggested course of action is against/in line with an Intimacy. With several applicable Intimacies, this stacks to a maximum of +/-3. Similarly +/-2 for the highest Virtue, and Nature (I don't use Motivations). For social attacks where Appearance is a factor, MDV is modified by -(Attacker's Appearance - target's Temperance), which cannot be positive or exceed -3.


Also, the strength of the effect depends on how much successes the attacker accumulates beyond the MDV.


I still don't know what to do about spending 1 Wp to perfectly defend against mental/social attacks. I find it a bit bothersome. I've ruled that mortals cannot do it (I don't like mortals shrugging heavy-weight mental manipulastion off with 1 Wp). Perhaps a better solution would be to increase the cost of ignoring a mental/social attack so that it depends on the successes, like 1 Wp/5 successes beyond the target number or something. I haven't calibrated this to see whether one could make that balanced.

 

[cyl]

Also, the strength of the effect depends on how much successes the attacker accumulates beyond the MDV.

I remember clearly reading the opposite in the corebook.
It is very difficult in fact to make a system integrate some kind of social fu, mainly because it can be used by pcs, but also can be used against them, and this is the major part of the problem.


Also the exalted intention was to enlarge the tick system to all forms of combat, hence the creation of social combat.


Simplifying to the extreme the social combat is a much better way to deal with those things. Either you match or exceed the MDV then you get the appropriate effect, or you don't and nothing happens.

 

[syys]

I remember clearly reading the opposite in the corebook.

Yes, according to the book it doesn't matter how many successes over the threshold you get, the effect is all or nothing. I don't see the point of this. Apart from Charms where the effect is fixed (and which don't need changing), I find it easy to determine the effect based on the number of successes, as with any other roll.

 

[Lord Kamina]

Social Combat is _FUN_


I personally think the only problem with social combat are the long ticks, given the scope of Exalted, I think it's awesome to fight while discussing.


That's all I have to say about that.

 

[magnificentmomo]

I like it too. I was actually planning on having my PCs be in a battle and debate at the same time and just make the long ticks short for fun.

 

[brennanhawkwood]

The social combat rules haven't come up much in my game.  The couple times I have used it weren't terribly complicated and were oriented more toward introducing the concept to my players that to actually put it through its paces.  


We found that it worked pretty well, especially for giving a better framework than the ST's occasionally biased subjectivity against which a not particularly socially gifted player can play against when his character is supposed to be very socially skilled.  


Currently I don't use it for every little social encounter.  Most of the time we either just role-play the situation or I have the players involved make a quick roll which I compare to the NPCs defense values and wing the results.  While my players are still getting an overall handle on the game system, I am generally reserving the full social combat system for cases where a social encounter is the equivalent to a significant fight scene.  


At the point they are at now, none of my PCs have invested in social-fu beyond a couple of excellencies...once they do so, I may use the social combat stuff more since those charms tend to assume its use...but how much more is yet to be seen.

 

[Lord Kamina]

I like it too. I was actually planning on having my PCs be in a battle and debate at the same time and just make the long ticks short for fun.

The problem with that is tracking two separate initiatives...

 

[brennanhawkwood]

I like it too. I was actually planning on having my PCs be in a battle and debate at the same time and just make the long ticks short for fun.

The problem with that is tracking two separate initiatives...

Unless he is literally folding the two systems into each other.  In other words, making a social attack at the same time as a slashing at your opponent would be a flurry of the two actions with the usual rules applying.


You might be able argue for tracking different sets of DV penalties...social only being penalized if you took a social action and so on.  I think if I were to combine the two like this I'd be tempted to not separate DVs like that though.  Its got to be at least mildly distracting having to fight and put real effort into social interaction at the same time.

 

[Flagg]

the ST's occasionally biased subjectivity

If the ST's subjectivity was only occasionally biased, what was it the rest of the time? Objective?

 

[Persell]

I think they are bullshit. If I was to run exalted again I would shamelessly steal some of the burning wheel stuff.


For example:


Right now social combat is a brainwashing attempt. That sucks. It is the root of all problems social combat has, well at least for most of the problems. Because brainwashing is insanely powerful, they had to implement overly effective defenses which in the end lead to the cold war that is social combat. It goes on until someone loses 3-4 willpower, then the whacking starts. Boring.


I would use social combat only in courtroom situations, before a judge or in similar situations, basically I would shift the focus from convincing your enemy to convincing the crowd. Then social combat means you bring your point better across than the other guy, no more brainwashing and we can get rid of the stupidly high defenses.


Of course for that to work you have to get rid or change a lot of social charms, which might be too much work for little return.

 

[magnificentmomo]

You wouldn't have to put it in a court to keep it from being a brainwashing contest. You could just have similar tactics, convince these other people over here of dire consequence to mister man over there that he rapes babies.


I don't see brainwashing, although I do see where you could get that feeling. Brainwashing is just being a really effective liar.


If by brainwashing you are referring to breaking someone's motivation then this is where the dissimilarities between social and physical combat differ. In combat you aren't always going for the kill, some prescribe to the school of thought that it is a last resort when the other party won't stop. This goes double for social combat. The goal isn't always taking away all of their willpower, it is getting that piece of information or working them over to your side or the other possible offender, getting them to do something.


This could be seen as brainwashing when it gets to an Exalt, because they can tell you to bawk like a chicken until you do. This just needs to stay under close ST supervision because just like you have to compensate for your Dawn combat monkey you now have to compensate for Zenith talking monkey.


It is by no stretch of the imagination perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I like having safety nets for when the player can't live up to the character.

 

[Lord Kamina]

I think they are bullshit. If I was to run exalted again I would shamelessly steal some of the burning wheel stuff.
For example:


Right now social combat is a brainwashing attempt. That sucks. It is the root of all problems social combat has, well at least for most of the problems. Because brainwashing is insanely powerful, they had to implement overly effective defenses which in the end lead to the cold war that is social combat. It goes on until someone loses 3-4 willpower, then the whacking starts. Boring.


I would use social combat only in courtroom situations, before a judge or in similar situations, basically I would shift the focus from convincing your enemy to convincing the crowd. Then social combat means you bring your point better across than the other guy, no more brainwashing and we can get rid of the stupidly high defenses.


Of course for that to work you have to get rid or change a lot of social charms, which might be too much work for little return.

Oddly enough, we have never used Social combat for brainwashing. For brainwashing we just use an isolated roll/charm...


We have used social combat mostly in courtroom situations and things like that and it has worked really great.

 

[Persell]

You wouldn't have to put it in a court to keep it from being a brainwashing contest. You could just have similar tactics, convince these other people over here of dire consequence to mister man over there that he rapes babies.
I don't see brainwashing, although I do see where you could get that feeling. Brainwashing is just being a really effective liar.


If by brainwashing you are referring to breaking someone's motivation then this is where the dissimilarities between social and physical combat differ. In combat you aren't always going for the kill, some prescribe to the school of thought that it is a last resort when the other party won't stop. This goes double for social combat. The goal isn't always taking away all of their willpower, it is getting that piece of information or working them over to your side or the other possible offender, getting them to do something.


This could be seen as brainwashing when it gets to an Exalt, because they can tell you to bawk like a chicken until you do. This just needs to stay under close ST supervision because just like you have to compensate for your Dawn combat monkey you now have to compensate for Zenith talking monkey.


It is by no stretch of the imagination perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I like having safety nets for when the player can't live up to the character.

A court was used for "audiences in general which have an opinion the characters attempt to sway" i.e. a typical courtroom situation.


About brainwashing. The current social combat is perhaps not fully blown brainwashing, but it is conditioning at the very least. Just look at the amount of intimacies you can give, overwrite and discard without too much trouble. You can turn a knight who loves his sword, his liege and his subjects and whose motivation is to protect his country into a murdering brute who burns villages to deny the enemy the ressources in a matter of minutes.


Bubble gum elasticity in characters is no fun, especially when something as simple as a conversation is the cause.

 

[Coyotekin]

Well on that level it shouldn't be anything less than an Exalted that made it possible. A Heroic Mortal could do it, but over prolonged time and thorugh different events. Take Prince Arthas in Warcraft 3 for example, he was a headstrong paladin and the prince of his country. Little by little he became more obsessed with revenge for the wrongs against his country that he started to kill peasants just to not have the enemy have them as zombies.

 

[Persell]

Well on that level it shouldn't be anything less than an Exalted that made it possible. A Heroic Mortal could do it, but over prolonged time and thorugh different events. Take Prince Arthas in Warcraft 3 for example, he was a headstrong paladin and the prince of his country. Little by little he became more obsessed with revenge for the wrongs against his country that he started to kill peasants just to not have the enemy have them as zombies.

I think the problem, in this case, is that Arthas took months to change, and this change was brought about by multiple life-shattering events, whereas in Exalted, such a change can be brought about by a simple 10-minute conversation. I realize that this kind of social potency is probably befitting the power of the Exalted, but that's still a bit much.


Also, on the other side of the argument: I hate how, unlike in normal combat, threshold successes do nothing in social combat. I once beat somebody's MDV by 20, and he still only spent one willpower to resist. Were this normal combat, the guy would be reduced to a fine pink powder, but in social combat, I did no better than if I had exceeded his MDV by a mere 1. Made me wonder why I took that combo in the first place.


Also, one final quip about social combat: suggestions and observations becoming actual "attacks" in social combat has led to something odd that I've noticed: it's become incredibly hard for my Eclipse to convince anyone of anything. Because it's a social "attack", with dice rolled and everything, most other players get really defensive, and spend willpower just to avoid changing their minds. This has the odd result of making the most social character in the group also the least influential, because nobody wants to listen to him. Just something odd I noticed.

 

[Decurion]

Also, one final quip about social combat: suggestions and observations becoming actual "attacks" in social combat has led to something odd that I've noticed: it's become incredibly hard for my Eclipse to convince anyone of anything. Because it's a social "attack", with dice rolled and everything, most other players get really defensive, and spend willpower just to avoid changing their minds. This has the odd result of making the most social character in the group also the least influential, because nobody wants to listen to him. Just something odd I noticed.

WTF are you using social combat on each other?


Why not simply talk to each other?  I don't think Social Combat is intended as a mechanism for every conversation in the entire game. . .

 

[Lord Kamina]

Somebody is doing it wrong...

 

[Persell]

... The goal isn't always taking away all of their willpower, it is getting that piece of information or working them over to your side or the other possible offender, getting them to do something.
...

The goal of the conversation/encounter may not be to get the target to spend willpower, but that is exactly the goal of the social combat mechanics. I like the general way the mechanics work, but it seems to me that the end results of the mechanics are hosed a bit.

 

[Persell]

Well on that level it shouldn't be anything less than an Exalted that made it possible. A Heroic Mortal could do it, but over prolonged time and thorugh different events. Take Prince Arthas in Warcraft 3 for example, he was a headstrong paladin and the prince of his country. Little by little he became more obsessed with revenge for the wrongs against his country that he started to kill peasants just to not have the enemy have them as zombies.

Except Arthas was not turned to a bloodthirsty killer in a single conversation. While that is very possible by just adding a couple of intimacies to a character with a motivation like "defend the empire".


They had to kill huge parts of his population, show him that his old ways of defense are no match for his new enemies, isolate him from his friends over MONTHS, give him a cursed sword with mind controlling powers and even then they had to sacrifice a couple of high ranking lieutenants and a couple of hundred thousand of troops just to turn him. And I agree, that is epic. If exalted social combat worked that way, it would be cool. Sadly it doesn't.

 

[Lord Kamina]

Well on that level it shouldn't be anything less than an Exalted that made it possible. A Heroic Mortal could do it, but over prolonged time and thorugh different events. Take Prince Arthas in Warcraft 3 for example, he was a headstrong paladin and the prince of his country. Little by little he became more obsessed with revenge for the wrongs against his country that he started to kill peasants just to not have the enemy have them as zombies.

Except Arthas was not turned to a bloodthirsty killer in a single conversation. While that is very possible by just adding a couple of intimacies to a character with a motivation like "defend the empire".


They had to kill huge parts of his population, show him that his old ways of defense are no match for his new enemies, isolate him from his friends over MONTHS, give him a cursed sword with mind controlling powers and even then they had to sacrifice a couple of high ranking lieutenants and a couple of hundred thousand of troops just to turn him. And I agree, that is epic. If exalted social combat worked that way, it would be cool. Sadly it doesn't.

I am pretty sure you can't produce that kind of a change on one scene.


Sure, perhaps if you're an Essence 3/4 Solar/Abyssal, you can do it fairly easily, but it's not like people are getting brainwashed every day or something.


Usually if you try to brainwash someone, you'll clash against motivation and it can even end up backfiring.

 

[Persell]

Motivation: Defend the Empire from harm


Intimacies:


My people are the strength and backbone of my realm. I need to protect them.


The empress is a wise leader and I will follow her call and defend her honour/life.


Now bring in a solar brainfucker with a couple of charms and the means to either remain undetected or the ability to tie the dragon blooded down.


All you have to do is change the intimacies to:


I have to defend the realm at all cost, the peasants are just another renewable ressource.


I am best suited to leading the realm and protecting it from harm, perhaps the empress has lived so long as that she alienated herself from the demands of daily life.


Now, assume a conviction of three, integrity 2 and a willpower of 8, slightly above average for a young commander I'd say and let the solar go for it.


You really think the dragon blooded will remain unchanged?

 

[Coyotekin]

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.