Social Combat Fix Idea

[Kyeudo]

Why add so many social health levels to the system? 7 as a base is good enough for regular combat, why insist on what could be as many as 13 health levels for social combat?

 

[cyl]

Well, IMHO, because punching someone in the face until he falls unconscious is not the same thing and should not be represented mechanically exactly as talking him into thinking something to get him to act accordingly.


Right now we have 3 options, ranging from 3 (someone with an intimacy towards the compulsion) to 13 HLs in the most extreme case (a hard headed person with an intimacy contrary to the compulsion)... that doesn't sound good to you ?


I think it gives a bit of a challenge, but you could always add an integrity charm giving additional HLs.

 

[Kyeudo]

Still, it all boils down to assigning arbitrary numbers to things and what better way to pick than use the arbitrary number from regular combat? I was working on the idea of roughly 7 social health levels being fairly good and it came out that 6 was the most elegant match. 13 is about twice that.


And yes, I was planning to rewrite some Integrity Charms to provide additional social health levels. Got to get the basics hashed out before you add magic, though.

 

[cyl]

Hmm I'm confused...

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.

So you mean here that you automatically have 6 HLs (3 intimacy + 3 compulsion) in social combat.


My question was: what if someone already has an intimacy supporting the compulsion you want to build ?!


Like Mercy as an intimacy and sparing prisoners of war as a compulsion.


Are you saying you would have to build another intimacy anyway ?! :|


And what about destroying an opposed intimacy ?! doesn't that make it at least 9HLs (destroy intimacy 3 + build intimacy + build compulsion).

 

[Kyeudo]

Hmm I'm confused...
So you mean here that you automatically have 6 HLs (3 intimacy + 3 compulsion) in social combat.

No. Under the system as I envisioned it, the Compulsion is formed as soon as one level of social damage lands on someone with an Intimacy that would support it. So if you have no Intimacies, you only have 3 health levels. If you are opposed to the idea, then you have 6 health levels. If you already have an Intimacy to the idea, you are on your last legs in Social Combat, easily convinced by the first argument to get past your guard.

 

[cyl]

No. Under the system as I envisioned it, the Compulsion is formed as soon as one level of social damage lands on someone with an Intimacy that would support it. So if you have no Intimacies, you only have 3 health levels. If you are opposed to the idea, then you have 6 health levels. If you already have an Intimacy to the idea, you are on your last legs in Social Combat, easily convinced by the first argument to get past your guard.

Wow... that's... a bit too easy don't you think ?


I mean 1/3/6... there's not much of a challenge.

 

[Kyeudo]

Wow... that's... a bit too easy don't you think ?


I mean 1/3/6... there's not much of a challenge.

Somehow 7 health levels works out to a challenge in regular combat, and that's with Great Swords and Grand Goremauls being swung around. Social damage is going to be comparatively small.

 

[Kyeudo]

Still have problems to work out. The system as I've got it can't be won by someone who isn't a good orater. If you want to get out of social combat, you have to convince your opponent of something. Someone with some dots in Presence or Performance can eventually build an Intimacy of respect or fear and then compel the opponent to leave him alone, but what does the guy who is just stubborn do to drop out of Social Combat?

 

[cyl]

Well... that's when you have to implement the arbitrary because you can't build a system with a roll for this, since rolling means potential failure, so it's up to the ST to determine when "this conversation is over".


The canon offers: spend wp


I say: A) spend Temperance WP and then go into stress mode or B) close debate action


Or you could actually build an intimacy about "social prudence" and have him act upon it. So next time he tries to bug someone, he will have a compulsion to avoid insisting... but first of all how do you measure the tolerance of someone who does not want to comply and is feeling a little annoyed by the insisting persuader ?! How do you evaluate / rate the state of mind of the target, and does it affect his ability to close the debate ?!

 

[Kyeudo]

I think you're missing the problem. I have no issue with social combatants creating an Intimacy of respect towards themselves before compelling their social attacker to go away.


The issue I have is the guy who only has high Integrity but very few dots in Presence or Performance. How does he get out of social combat? In regular combat, this would be a guy with lots of Dodge and very little Melee, someone who would run from combat or let his friends handle it but probably still survive. In social combat, what does he do?

 

[cyl]

Well that was my previous suggestion, to create a "social movement" & using Manipulation as Dexterity, simulating the fact that someones is socially too agile to be caught in an attack and keeps slipping away from your grip.


If your opponent dodges your arguments (attacks) and can't be maintained on the social ground (topic / location) where you can attack him (reach), then you're screwed.


Consider a conversation like a battlefield from which you can run away without physically moving a feet.


- so mr Prince Merchant, you're gonna stop this slave trade in my dominion, but this won't affect our dealings with the Guild, okay ?


- oh I don't think so my dear (MDV cancels out successes), by the way have you noted how the weather is quite rainy this time of the year, don't you have problems with your farms ?! (evasion).

 

[Kyeudo]

Well, let's say we do implement a Change Topic action. What prevents the opponent from changing the topic back? What makes this the end of the conversation?

 

[cyl]

Well, let's say we do implement a Change Topic action. What prevents the opponent from changing the topic back? What makes this the end of the conversation?

Uh, no, that's not what I was suggesting. I was thinking about "distracting the attacker", much like re establishing surprise you know... "I hid away, you can't find me, so you can't attack me !".


Let's see how you end a combat in physical combat:


- victory / defeat: that you have taken care of


- surrender of both parties: uh... that not really but it's just a cease fire so no system is required if the parties consent to it


- running away: that's what we're trying to do


- subduing the opponent: (if you clinch & maintain hold, the combat is practically over at one point) that we haven't thought of yet

 

[Kyeudo]

hiding makes sense in regular combat. How does it make sense socially?

 

[cyl]

The concept behind hiding is to be unreachable, fleeing.


That can be applied to social combat too.


If you consider that behind the attacks and dv there are words / concepts / ideas exchanged, more or less subtly, then you could conceive hiding behind the social landscape of a conversation.


I mean if you have unexpected social attacks, then surprise exists.

 

[Kyeudo]

I'm not sure unexpected social attacks make sense. Unexpected attacks make sense because if you don't know a knife is coming, you can't react to it. However, a social attack has to be reacted to to have any effect (since if you don't comprehend an argument, you can't be moved by it).

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

And you can't mislead someone into thinking you're just part of the scenery, the wallflower or the like, and then catch them off guard with a sudden surprise comment or the like?

 

[cyl]

I'm not sure unexpected social attacks make sense. Unexpected attacks make sense because if you don't know a knife is coming, you can't react to it. However, a social attack has to be reacted to to have any effect (since if you don't comprehend an argument, you can't be moved by it).

Same logic applies to social combat, if you do not know something is coming your way you are caught off guard.
Imagine a discussion between a diplomat and a king, and in the middle of the exchange, the diplomat throws a "By the way, o good king, did you know that your daughter has been defiled by your minister of justice ? I personnally would not put too much faith in the words and projects that come from this treacherous and double faced man if I were you but... that is just me.".

 

[Kyeudo]

When we say someone caught us off guard in regular combat, we mean someone just stuck a sword through our ribs, but when we say that someone's words caught us off guard, we mean that we weren't able to come up with a response on the spot because we weren't expecting it, not that it immediately convinced us of whatever was said. Just because I didn't expect the diplomat to say "Yo momma is so fat, she needs a boomerang to put on her belt" doesn't mean I now think my mother needs to go on a serious diet.

 

[cyl]

They both rely on the same element of surprise, and the lack of appropriate response deriving from it.


In my previous example, the diplomat can try to shatter the king's trust in his minister / daugther (most likely an intimacy) or simply wants to mess with his mind / gain his trust.


If the king does not suspect a relation between his daughter and the man he trusts, then it will be easier to destroy the trust between the king and the minister (or with his daughter) with that unexpected revelation coming out of nowhere.

 

[Kyeudo]

You are missing my point. In real combat, someone catching you off guard is often fatal. In social combat, it means that it takes you a moment or two to come up with a response. Very different levels of threat.


Why would I (as the king) believe some person who just came up to me and told me my daughter is sleeping with one of the ministers just because I didn't expect him to say that? I might be flabergasted that someone would just accuse my daughter of being a whore right in front of me, but believe what they said? Probably not.

 

[cyl]

Poor choice of words and arguments lead indeed to doubt and disbelief.


It's not because I say your daugther's a whore that you are going to believe she is, or trust me.


But if I say "by the way, your daughter's a whore and here's the irrefutable proof !", and throw said proof at your feet, what will be your reaction ? how can you defend against this ?


This is exactly how unexpected social attack should look like IMHO.

 

[Kyeudo]

That's just a very good social attack. An argument backed with proof is always better than just an argument. An unexpected attack allows no defense, just whatever soak you have, so even a poor one will usually still have an effect, which isn't something that goes well with social combat.


Heck, people can still deny the truth even when it is staring them in the eye. Take a look at Hinamori and Aizen. He stabbed her and she still believes Gin brainwashed him into doing it.

 

[cyl]

That's just a very good social attack. An argument backed with proof is always better than just an argument. An unexpected attack allows no defense, just whatever soak you have, so even a poor one will usually still have an effect, which isn't something that goes well with social combat.

... because you have no social soak with the canon... but with your system, we do, so I don't see the problem.

Take a look at Hinamori and Aizen. He stabbed her and she still believes Gin brainwashed him into doing it.

That's because he brainwashed her into believing he was incapable of evil (following your system intimacy + compulsion), and also because she's a moron ! :lol:

 

[Kyeudo]

... because you have no social soak with the canon... but with your system, we do, so I don't see the problem.

I was talking about how just because you decide to suddenly tell the king his wife is sleeping with the head general of the army in the middle of a conversation about the price of salt doesn't mean the king should suddenly start to think it might be true. The social attack is unnexpected and no matter the king's social soak he'll still take at least one die of social damage because of that and probably more, since base social damge is rougly equal to social soak. Why can the king not just disbelieve it entirely (as represented by his dodge MDV)? I can see him not being able to make a counter argument (he's stunned speachless that someone would say such a thing), but not that he suddenly believes everything.