Social attacks, are they useless?
- Thread starter EccentricNed
- Start date
hello
no one answered the issue.
In 90% of the cases... dodge MDV will be clearly superior to Parry MDV.
unless I misread something
Maybe they think its easier to just flatly ignor an argument, then to poke a hole in it.
Though also... theirs a lot more charms that refute any form of social dodge, then any form of social parry.
no one answered the issue.
In 90% of the cases... dodge MDV will be clearly superior to Parry MDV.
unless I misread something
Maybe they think its easier to just flatly ignor an argument, then to poke a hole in it.
Though also... theirs a lot more charms that refute any form of social dodge, then any form of social parry.
memesis
One Thousand Club
Let's look at this two ways, keeping in mind that DV rounds down for mortals.
1. Exalted social characters. Â They will probably have a couple dots in Integrity (why not?) and Willpowers in the 6-7 range. Â Between their higher-than-normal Willpower and their Essence, Dodge MDV will be pretty good. Â Typical range: 5-6
2. Mortal social characters. Â Probably 1-3 dots in Integrity, Willpower in the 4-5 range, and Essence 1. Â Typical range: 3-4
The things that drive DVs up for Exalts are: Essence, typically higher Willpower, and the round-up rule (meaning they need effectively one less in Integrity, Willpower, or Essence to equal a mortal's DV).
This works, in that the average Exalt who isn't a skilled debater is still going to be full of his own destiny and brimming with conviction. Â He can bull his way through people trying to sway him without having to answer them directly.
And yes, things like Majestic Radiant Presence are designed to counter that sort of thing. Â "You must respect my godlike power and actually answer my freaking point, instead of just sitting there ignoring the logic of my words."
The skilled debater, who has counter-arguments and ripostes and rhetorical tricks galore, has to work harder to keep his parry DV on par. Â But he will be rewarded if his opponent ever uses Charms to make an undodgeable point.
Samiel
One Thousand Club
Another note: mortals don't add essence to their DV if I recall.
I've had this discussion with Eccentric Ned before, and my point always was that it would be brutal for PCs to deal with a system where their characters are at risk of being eaten alive by a passing remark from a good debater. The social combat system isn't there to take control of PCs or NPCs, but to offer a believable framework in which to view an interaction; A argued well and B was hard-pushed to resist their reason.
And dodge is higher than Parry for the obvious and fair reason that it normally is in the real world: people are more likely to discard another person's points and rephrase their own rather than to actually poke holes in the other argument, unless the other person's argument is silly, in which case you're welcome to apply your parry.
There's also no need for a "counterattack", as this is part of combat already. In normal combat for example (As the systems are similar), although real-world fights allow for counterattacks and ripostes, in the system this is resolved as a normal attack with flavour added for drama rather than an attack of opportunity because of a poor attack on another's part. Similarly, in social combat the exchange between characters is supposed to be two-way and involve a real discussion: the system determines who is attacker and attackee at any given moment, and the ST awards stunt dice to the attack roll and the defence based on the points of each.
So far as I can see, the system is supposed to be a background ticker rather than the true sandbox: ideally, players and NPCs discuss in-character rather than "taking turns" like in combat, and the ST just takes their points into account and assigns dice, occasionally calling for rolls during the discussion.
I've had this discussion with Eccentric Ned before, and my point always was that it would be brutal for PCs to deal with a system where their characters are at risk of being eaten alive by a passing remark from a good debater. The social combat system isn't there to take control of PCs or NPCs, but to offer a believable framework in which to view an interaction; A argued well and B was hard-pushed to resist their reason.
And dodge is higher than Parry for the obvious and fair reason that it normally is in the real world: people are more likely to discard another person's points and rephrase their own rather than to actually poke holes in the other argument, unless the other person's argument is silly, in which case you're welcome to apply your parry.
There's also no need for a "counterattack", as this is part of combat already. In normal combat for example (As the systems are similar), although real-world fights allow for counterattacks and ripostes, in the system this is resolved as a normal attack with flavour added for drama rather than an attack of opportunity because of a poor attack on another's part. Similarly, in social combat the exchange between characters is supposed to be two-way and involve a real discussion: the system determines who is attacker and attackee at any given moment, and the ST awards stunt dice to the attack roll and the defence based on the points of each.
So far as I can see, the system is supposed to be a background ticker rather than the true sandbox: ideally, players and NPCs discuss in-character rather than "taking turns" like in combat, and the ST just takes their points into account and assigns dice, occasionally calling for rolls during the discussion.
