Social Combat Fix Idea

[cyl]

A & B could persuade each other to adopt a "desired behavior"... I also disagree with the "social immunity" the PCs have, because they don't have the same immunity in combat... they bleed and they take wounds... so should they in social combat.


While only one of A & B has to have an agenda for the other (if not... well there's no point in social combat), both should be able to affect each other through the debate.


But you know, you could create similar rules to physical combat... damage, soak, HLs, I thought about that at first, but finally dropped it because it made no sense (especially the soak and HLs part). And the best I've come up with does not seem to satisfy your needs... so maybe you could focus more on your needs and desires so we help you build what you're gunning for.

Looking at it now, any good revision has to have a way to get out of social combat without resorting to actual combat, but I have no good ideas on the matter.

Well that was the intention behind the "stress condition" in my mod, once one has made significant efforts of denying the other any ground, and has done so at the best of his Temperance virtue... then one starts loosing patience, which consequences are up to the ST.
So if someone wants to get out of Social Combat, he just needs to spend as much as his Temperance in WP to close the debate.

 

[Kyeudo]

Well that was the intention behind the "stress condition" in my mod, once one has made significant efforts of denying the other any ground, and has done so at the best of his Temperance virtue... then one starts loosing patience, which consequences are up to the ST.
So if someone wants to get out of Social Combat, he just needs to spend as much as his Temperance in WP to close the debate.

Which is just like the arbitrary 2 Willpower limit, only for everyone. Social Combat starts getting no results.


If Social Combat is going on, you don't have people who will just push over if you ask nicely. It's best to assume that everyone will be fighting to the best of their ability, like in regular combat. That means resisting if they have the (whatever) to resist, depending on what the system uses to resist. Currently, that's Willpower, but I want to see that changed personally.


So, someone trying to shut down Social Combat doesn't just sit there and take it. They have to do something or else go down like a swordsman who won't attack. The what is eluding me, as I don't see building an Intimacy of "leave me alone" in your attacker as a very good way to mechanicallly model that. It's too permanent a solution.

 

[cyl]

Well, there you have a problem.


You completely obliterate one essential element on any debate: free will.


Social Combat cannot work like physical combat simply because someone can decide to walk out of the debate, while he cannot do the same in physical combat once he has been engaged.


If you take out that arbitrary part, then exalts will become even more dangerous than ever.


What you could perhaps do would be to create a special action: Defuse Debate with a significantly high speed, allowing the attacker to place one or maybe two more attacks before the debate is ended, so that when the target has decided he has heard enough and will not comply to the demands of his opponent, he can defuse the debate with a successful x + y roll... but the condition upon which the Defuse Debate action can be used is even more arbitrary than my stress condition solution.


IMO you have to keep things proportionate, there must be some system behind a complete refusal. Some behavior from the target showing the player that he is likely to get the target to shut down and loose the debate if he does not change his approach.

 

[IanPrice]

Passive-aggressive: ignores you. Completely clammed up, using dodge MDV against your social attacks, spends willpower to not respond.


I don't think that everyone has to be active in social combat.


Stoic: Like above, but may acknowledge your presence, and try to shut you up with some terse or wordless social attacks of his/her own.


On the other hand, if you want to conserve your willpower, it can be handy to have a strategy to get your way. In this case, your way is, "stop bothering me, you social pest." Most people won't be deeply opposed to not convincing you, especially if you give them an alternative to try, or good reason to believe they won't be able to convince you. Thus you get traditional lines like "over my dead body" (which can cause physical combat to start instead in many situations) or "Listen, go do (nigh-impossible request), and I'll consider it."


You don't have to create an intimacy in someone to convince them of certain behavior. It's just that even if you convince someone once, if the thing you have them doing conflicts with their personality, they're not likely to stick with it. And if it's enough against their personality, they'll never accept it to begin with.

 

[cyl]

I don't think that everyone has to be active in social combat.

For once we agree :wink:
Though I think everyone should be able to be active in social combat if needed.


Most RPGs view social interaction in one way, it's either Player to NPC or NPC to Player, but rarely Player and NPC arguing over something to make the other accept their point.


Forgot to mention the base question: Kyeudo, you still want to use ticks for your social fix ?

 

[Kyeudo]

I don't think that everyone has to be active in social combat.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm looking at the case where a person, taken into social combat, tries the social equivalent of running away in regular combat. Person A wants Person B to perform some action, say a courtier trying to get a king to make some law, and Person B does not wish to. Person B, under existing social combat, could probably try to use social attacks to compel Person A to go away, but Person A can just spend two Willpower and stay anyway. How does Person B end the social combat without physically running away? It would look really silly if the King had to sprint from his throne room every time a courtier proposed a new law.


If you are involved in social combat, you are necessarily going to be active in it, even if that is only to be actively ignoring your opponent.


To put it simply, I'm currently trying to think of an elegant mechanic for trying to peacefully end a debate that isn't just arbitrarily "I suddenly become unconvincable and there is nothing you can do about it".

Forgot to mention the base question: Kyeudo, you still want to use ticks for your social fix ?

I've got no strong opinions either way yet. If I can resolve the niggling issues and it doesn't matter either way, I'll probably keep ticks, just because they handle situations of more than 1 on 1 more elegantly than turns.

 

[IanPrice]

Once both sides have spent two willpower, it's not some arbitrary thing. That represents the gritting of teeth, the digging in of heels, and the commitment to the idea that your only answer to the other person is "you are wrong no matter what you say." If nobody's making any progress, then there's three options: change the subject, part ways, or fight. If someone's proposing something to the king, rather convincingly, but the king is digging in his heels and getting upset... that courtier had better recognize "shit, the king is stressed out, I'd best leave before he orders the guards on me."


It's not arbitrary so long as you describe what the system is representing. Just like physical combat is more visceral when you describe who hit what with what through what.

 

[cyl]

We agree once again i


If A pushes B towards his stress mode (which is important to determine and IMO has to be linked to Temperance), and keeps on pushing then B is likely to "become physical" if A lacks common sense.


What about this ?


Close Debate (speed 10 if you use ticks) & Stress Mode: B can make a simple Conviction roll, if successful he is no longer willing to participate in the debate and indicates to A (politely or not) that he wants out, though A can still try to insist, he can make no more than (B's Temperance) additional attacks past this point else B goes into his stress mode (which consequences are up to the ST).


When B has successfully closed a debate, he gains a +1 MDV for the rest of the day for any renewed attempt at debating on the same topic.

 

[Kyeudo]

It's not arbitrary so long as you describe what the system is representing. Just like physical combat is more visceral when you describe who hit what with what through what.

It doesn't matter the discritption, its still arbitrary. There is nothing about the two Willpower limit that an opponent can do anything about. If I run away from regular combat, my opponent can chase me or block me. If I decide to stick it out because my DV is ridiculously high, he can keep trying to get through for as long as he wants. But in social combat, two Willpower is complete immunity to natural mental influence for a PC. Nothing the opponents can do about it. Just over.


There does need to be an out from social combat, but it needs to be an out that the opponent can fight to keep from happening.

 

[cyl]

Well you could also transpose something close to the Reach parameter.


Like socially getting away from the topic at hand... using Manipulation as dexterity, Move and Dash... though physically close to you, I am socially away from the reach of your arguments so you cannot hit me if you cannot keep up.


In a way, with a bit of imagination you could transpose the rules for combat to social combat, but the soak and HLs part will be problematic.

 

[IanPrice]

There is nothing about the two Willpower limit that an opponent can do anything about.

Not true at all. The opponent can stunt a new approach (rewards player skill; convince the GM or the player of the other character that this approach is different and might appeal to the character to be convinced), change the subject entirely ("fine, be it on your own head, but as long as we're talking, I have some ideas about the tariff agreement..."), or wait and come back (not every discussion is solved all at once, just like not every combat has to end with somebody unconscious or dying).


If you think of some real life arguments you've been in, I'm sure you can see the point where neither side is willing to give on the subject at hand. This is the 2wp limit of natural mental influence in action, or what cyl calls "stress mode."

 

[cyl]

This is the 2wp limit of natural mental influence in action, or what cyl calls "stress mode."

Those are two different things IMO, there is no obvious consequential stress after spending wp (only tireness maybe implied) in the canon while stress mode should precisely be this "stressful state of mind the target has been pushed to" and some consequences on the game should follow.

 

[IanPrice]

Except that, you know, willpower represents your mental reserves. And having expended those and being thus more mentally fatigued, you are, well, stressed is the best word I can come up with for it.


Health levels give you wound penalties because you are bearing bruises and cuts and broken bones. Willpower isn't there to spend because you're out of sorts and stressed out.

 

[Kyeudo]

The whole thing of "I've spend Willpower and am now more resistant to mental influence" is counter to the game's basic principles, where if you have no Willpower, you are extremely easy to influence. Having lost Willpower should make you more susceptible to influence, not less.


Yes, I realize the state you talk about, where niether side of an argument is going to change their minds, and I'm trying to figure out an elegant mechanical way to represent that, a sort of state that one side may be trying to force to happen while the other tries to prevent and thus be able to argue his case. I just don't want that state to be "spend X Willpower."


Currently, I'm thinking about something with Intimacies, but it isn't going anywhere fast.

 

[IanPrice]

Having less willpower does make you more susceptible, the same way having fewer health levels makes you more susceptible to being knocked unconscious or killed. But putting a limit on it per scene prevents people without charms from gaming the system and convincing literally anybody of anything they want within the scope of a few minutes.


How can I emphasize this enough? You can get around the limit with a stunt, according to the default system. The limit also does not apply to all subject matters, just the topic the two willpower were spent resisting - that gives the socialite plenty of room for tactical argument.


The current system is simple. I find the simplicity elegant. It represents well how people don't change their minds on things all at once, yet allows a clever and creative approach to gain more ground than a dull and abstract one. It also drives home the power of unnatural mental influence, which is mainly ignoring the 2wp/scene limit on a topic of persuasion, and secondarily in the other effects which many charms applying it add on top of that, such as unnaturally strong compulsions, servitudes, or otherwise-impossible illusions.


To be blunt, your reasoning is wrong. Willpower currently works exactly the way everything in the book says it does. It provides a buffer against mental influence, inner strength to succeed when you must, and the mental fortitude to activate powerful charms. The same resource must suffice for all three, so you have to husband it appropriately. It's a lot easier to get back than health levels, though, so it's not like it's an incredibly finite resource. Being low on it means you have less resistance to mental influence, because willpower IS that resistance, by spending it. The 2wp limit per scene on natural mental influence about a topic is no more arbitrary than the fact that successes are scored when the dice come up 7-9, with two scored on a 10. Ending arguments (without a clear victory, by one side convincing the other) isn't elegant or clean in either fiction or real life, so why should it be in Exalted?


In short, Ky, I can't agree with anything in your premise about social combat. I don't even understand why you want the things you want.

 

[Kyeudo]

Why do I not like Willpower as social health levels? Here's a run down:


1. Many social Charms cost a Willpower to use. This makes them inherently suicidal to use. How many combat charms do you see with 1 lethel health level in their cost?


2. Social Combos cost a Willpower to activate. Since when does using your best supernatural arguement make you easier to convince?


3. The two Willpower limit is like having a limit in normal combat of only two health levels can be lost to any non-magical attack. How in the world does that make real sense?


4. It makes the system inherently biased in favor of the PCs. By A Lot. Most NPCs, as far as the core book is concerned, can't perform stunts. This means the PCs are only going to need to spend 2 Willpower to ignore the demands of anyone who is not a social specced spirit or exalt, while they can stunt the Willpower out of just about anyone until they get what they want.


5. Using Willpower as social health levels plays hell with the relative value of Willpower. Once any important (read: involving a supernatural opponent) social combat starts, its value goes from the price of one awesome Charm use or a Virtue channel to precious as starmetal. You have to try and guess when the next time social combat is likely to break out and plan accordingly.


The system that I've been thinking about would use Intimacies as a form of social health levels, but its this question of "How does one win a social combat if one does not want anything from the other person?" that keeps the system from working. Until I answer that question, I'd have to have people convince the other person to leave. You couldn't just ignore your social attacker.

 

[cyl]

Ok, it's what I suspected then.


You have only one possible fix to do what you want, and it's not working around intimacies (those already work as a MDV modifier and have a decent system).


What you can do is emulate normal combat, with fixed HLs (just like regular HLs, 7 for non extras etc etc), "wound" penalties etc etc. (skip soak and weapons, you just need to roll successes passing DV as damage dice).


In this config you may have things like movement & disengagement, and most likely people will either drop social combat or duel "to the death".


The point of social combat is to "win something over the opponent" whatever the objective is.


It could be an emotion, a belief, a compulsion or anything you want, and not necessarily a compulsion to follow an order and act accordingly. The point is to have the opponent yield to your social beating either by surrender or total defeat (much like in normal combat except this time nobody has social grand klaves ! :roll: ).


The combat would see A getting to B, before B counters his arguments (through social attacks targeting A's HLs), and in this case B does not have to "want something out of B" but simply has to "refuse actively to comply" or merely "defend himself" in which case B does not attack A, but uses PDV & DDV.


And you use WP just like in normal combat (auto suxx & channelling virtues).


Charms will work as usual, and will have their resisting wp cost.


Does it seem like a valid proposition ?

 

[Kyeudo]

Cyl, sometimes you are completely unhelpful. Regular combat cares about movement and range and how big your sword is, while social combat should care what a participant holds dear and the sharpness of his mind.


Perhaps an explanation of what I've been thinking of will help explain why I'm looking for solutions to odd problems. Here's the basic outline of everything that I've thought of:


Intimacies will be fixed at needing three scenes to be built or destroyed.


Social attacks deal social damage, each level of which is equivalent to one scene of work on an Intimacy.


A social attack's social damage is equal to the opponent's rating in the Virtue that best corresponds to the attacks intent plus the extra successes on the attack roll.


Social Soak is equal to the Virtue most opposed by the attack's intent.


Social damage first goes to tearing down any Intimacies opposing the social attack's intent, then to building an appropriate Intimacy towards the attack's intent.


Once a social attack lands on someone with an appropriate Intimacy towards the attack's intent, they suffer a compulsion to act on it.


A creature suffering a compulsion that finds itself in a situation where the compulsion applies rolls three dice. Like a Virtue compulsion, if any of the dice are a success, he has to either comply with the compulsion or spend a Willpower to resist for a scene. After spending three Willpower this way, the compulsion breaks.

 

[cyl]

Cyl, sometimes you are completely unhelpful.

Yeah I often stray from the path of productivity when I don't understand what people wants... as Flagg signature indicates, I'm not the smartest person here :roll:
It's as much a quality because it forces people to reformulate their thoughts and come up with new ideas/approach, as a flaw because sometimes I piss them off :mrgreen:

Regular combat cares about movement and range and how big your sword is, while social combat should care what a participant holds dear and the sharpness of his mind.

You are mostly right here, but you are wrong if you think that you can't socially "dance with your opponent"... anyway...
unhelpful mode off :roll:

Intimacies will be fixed at needing three scenes to be built or destroyed.


Social attacks deal social damage, each level of which is equivalent to one scene of work on an Intimacy.


A social attack's social damage is equal to the opponent's rating in the Virtue that best corresponds to the attacks intent plus the extra successes on the attack roll.


Social Soak is equal to the Virtue most opposed by the attack's intent.


Social damage first goes to tearing down any Intimacies opposing the social attack's intent, then to building an appropriate Intimacy towards the attack's intent.


Once a social attack lands on someone with an appropriate Intimacy towards the attack's intent, they suffer a compulsion to act on it.


A creature suffering a compulsion that finds itself in a situation where the compulsion applies rolls three dice. Like a Virtue compulsion, if any of the dice are a success, he has to either comply with the compulsion or spend a Willpower to resist for a scene. After spending three Willpower this way, the compulsion breaks.

So if I got the mechs right:


1- you cannot create a compulsion without first creating an intimacy revolving around the compulsion, which sometimes means that you have to destroy any intimacy against the compulsion - a bit extreme but fair enough.


2- damage and soak are based on the opponent's traits and then you add extra suxx - this one is actually quite a good idea !


3- the time frame is 1 level of intimacy = 1 scene.


So let's take the example of a bloodthirsty general with an intimacy towards slaughter.


To change his behavior one would need to spend 3 scenes with him damaging his positive intimacy towards Slaughter, and then 3 other scenes turning it to a negative intimacy, or another positive intimacy towards merciful / noble behavior.


Past those 6+ scenes (6 being the minimum), the intimacy is created and so is the compulsion.


Let's say the general wants to break free from the influence, he'd just need to spend 1 wp on 3 scenes leading him to a Compulsion Test in order to shake the Compulsion off.


A few questions:


- are you intending to reformulate the way intimacies work in the game (the compulsion roll is kinda cool I think)


- what happens to the intimacy from which the compulsion derives if someone shakes off the Compulsion ? does it disappear ? (it seems a little unfair shake off 6 scenes of work in half the time)


- what depth of compulsion are we talking about ?


Is the Compulsion attached to the Intimacy "simple" like Intimacy; mercy, compulsion "do not kill defeated opponent", or complex like "be merciful"

 

[Kyeudo]

A few questions:


- are you intending to reformulate the way intimacies work in the game (the compulsion roll is kinda cool I think)

I've thought about making the Intimacy itself the compulsion, but haven't gone that far yet.

- what happens to the intimacy from which the compulsion derives if someone shakes off the Compulsion ? does it disappear ? (it seems a little unfair shake off 6 scenes of work in half the time)

Currently, nothing will happen to the Intimacy. If I decide it works better to have the Intimacy be the compulsion, then the three scenes spent acting against it will destroy it.

- what depth of compulsion are we talking about ?

The target feels an obligation to fufill whatever you convinced him of. Think a guilt trip from your parents.

Is the Compulsion attached to the Intimacy "simple" like Intimacy; mercy, compulsion "do not kill defeated opponent", or complex like "be merciful"

It can be as specific as desired.

 

[cyl]

Ok then perhaps you want to do the following:


1- preserve the existing system for intimacies (tied to Conviction) - because intimacies are part of the character's personality, if a character is hard headed (conviction 5) we might want to represent the fact that he has firm beliefs which are harder to shake off than a more hesitant person (Conviction 1).


2- create another category of "intimacies" called as desired: Influences / Suggestions / Compulsion etc etc - I strongly suggest this because really intimacies are not binding, a player doesn't need to spend wp to resist respecting an intimacy, while in the case of the influence a player has to.


3- keep the system you've put in place but mix it with the canon: 3 levels to build the influence, if the influence is contradictory to an intimacy (kinda like an unacceptable order) then you must first get rid of the Intimacy (following the classic system) and then build the influence.


Another suggestion; if a pre existing intimacy or a major virtue (3+) supports the influence, then we might want to increase the "resilience" of the influence by 1 or 2 levels, but leaving the building "cost" at 3 levels / scene. (though virtues already have compulsion system so... it might be redundant / unecessary for virtues, but still applicable to intimacies).

 

[Kyeudo]

Ok then perhaps you want to do the following:
1- preserve the existing system for intimacies (tied to Conviction) - because intimacies are part of the character's personality, if a character is hard headed (conviction 5) we might want to represent the fact that he has firm beliefs which are harder to shake off than a more hesitant person (Conviction 1).

While that makes plenty of sense, implementing that would mean that everyone who is involved in social combat would grab Conviction 5 really fast. I like a little diversity in Virtue choices.

2- create another category of "intimacies" called as desired: Influences / Suggestions / Compulsion etc etc - I strongly suggest this because really intimacies are not binding, a player doesn't need to spend wp to resist respecting an intimacy, while in the case of the influence a player has to.

That's what I'm currently going with. The compulsion is seperate from the Intimacy, but to convince someone you have to create an Intimacy.

3- keep the system you've put in place but mix it with the canon: 3 levels to build the influence, if the influence is contradictory to an intimacy (kinda like an unacceptable order) then you must first get rid of the Intimacy (following the classic system) and then build the influence.

How is this different from what I'm working on?

Another suggestion; if a pre existing intimacy or a major virtue (3+) supports the influence, then we might want to increase the "resilience" of the influence by 1 or 2 levels, but leaving the building "cost" at 3 levels / scene. (though virtues already have compulsion system so... it might be redundant / unecessary for virtues, but still applicable to intimacies).

If a compulsion you put a character under resonates with one of the character's Virtues, you can cause him to have to deal with both it and a Virtue compulsion at the same time.

 

[cyl]

While that makes plenty of sense, implementing that would mean that everyone who is involved in social combat would grab Conviction 5 really fast. I like a little diversity in Virtue choices.

Not necessarily but it seems a bit unfair to consider that everyone is equal in their stubborness... characters with a low conviction are "more easily convinced" not because they have low mental defenses (that's another factor and you can have a low Conviction AND a high MDV), but because they do not hold their intimacies as dear as people with a higher Conviction.
They won't make the same sacrifices for their beliefs and are more likely to give them up... and obviously are more socially flexible on their intimacies than someone with Conviction 5.

That's what I'm currently going with. The compulsion is seperate from the Intimacy, but to convince someone you have to create an Intimacy.
+


How is this different from what I'm working on?

Intimacies do not create compulsions, but compulsions are based on intimacies in your system.


The interdependance between the two and the difference between their effects calls for another "trait" (influence / compulsion / whatever) and since intimacies have an existing system, all you need to do is to follow the system for this addition (3 levels for a Compulsion, whatever your Conviction is).


You proposed to create intimacies with 3 levels / scenes, I encourage you to let Conviction remain the determining factor for building/eroding intimacies, but to keep the compulsions at 3 levels / scene.


Note: if someone already has an intimacy supporting the compulsion, then you could create the compulsion directly, right ?!

If a compulsion you put a character under resonates with one of the character's Virtues, you can cause him to have to deal with both it and a Virtue compulsion at the same time.

That's a bit harsh don't you think ?
It's twice the cost for two simultaneous compulsions for the exact same condition...


Another question: with this system, most interactions will be dealt with in only a few quick rolls, is that what you're aiming for ?

 

[Kyeudo]

Intimacies do not create compulsions, but compulsions are based on intimacies in your system.


The interdependance between the two and the difference between their effects calls for another "trait" (influence / compulsion / whatever) and since intimacies have an existing system, all you need to do is to follow the system for this addition (3 levels for a Compulsion, whatever your Conviction is).


You proposed to create intimacies with 3 levels / scenes, I encourage you to let Conviction remain the determining factor for building/eroding intimacies, but to keep the compulsions at 3 levels / scene.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you want the Compulsion itself to be like a 3 scene Intimacy that can just be built without need of an existing Intimacy?

Note: if someone already has an intimacy supporting the compulsion, then you could create the compulsion directly, right ?!

Under my existing system, yes. The first bit of social damage to land would create an Intimacy. You would be the equivalent of a social extra.

That's a bit harsh don't you think ?


It's twice the cost for two simultaneous compulsions for the exact same condition...

Not really. Sounds more like good work reading the opponent.

Another question: with this system, most interactions will be dealt with in only a few quick rolls, is that what you're aiming for ?

No more so than regular combat is dealt with in only a few rolls. I don't see any major lessening of defenses.

 

[cyl]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you want the Compulsion itself to be like a 3 scene Intimacy that can just be built without need of an existing Intimacy?

Nope.
In my understanding of your system & the intention behind it I encourage you to do the following:


- keep the existing system for Intimacies using Conviction to determine the "HLs" of any Intimacy. (because Conviction measures the commitment to ideals and "things a character holds dear")


- keep your idea of Compulsion following the same system as intimacies, except any Compulsion has a fixed number of HLs (3), also corresponding to the number of scenes needed to create the Compulsion in someone's mind.


Now to sum things up:


A wants to create a compulsion in B's mind.


- if B has an intimacy in favor of the compulsion, A simply has to build the Compulsion


- if B has no intimacy in favor of the compulsion, A must build an intimacy first, then build the compulsion (you convince someone of something, and then you make him believe he has to act upon it)


- if B has an intimacy going against the compulsion, A must destroy this intimacy first, build an intimacy in favor of the compulsion, and then build the compulsion.


We good ?