Social Combat Fix Idea

[cyl]

Ow, so you're going for the "realistic approach" then... well... then unexpected attacks will not work with your system, because there is no "middle ground" with your system, no gray.


It's either white or black, won or lost.


Doubts and other temporary states of mind and their effects on the social combat are not represented in your system... so... we can't really solve the problem here.

 

[Kyeudo]

I just had a couple of new ideas. First, what if we just compromise and say that unexpected attacks bypass only Mental Parry DV? Unexpected attacks still provide some benefit, but I get a better level of realism.


Second, what if there were something like an Intimacy that builds as social attacks fail to connect but that can be attacked to weaken it? Once it builds compeletely, all social attacks against the character automatically fail for the rest of the scene. Do you think that mght be workable?

 

[cyl]

First, what if we just compromise and say that unexpected attacks bypass only Mental Parry DV?

Doesn't make sense, if you're caught off guard you are destabilized and you take a hit, but you could mitigate the effects for unexpected attacks, something like a maximum damage cap to preserve realism, so unexpected attacks still get you some benefits, but do not crush the target outright.

Second, what if there were something like an Intimacy that builds as social attacks fail to connect but that can be attacked to weaken it? Once it builds compeletely, all social attacks against the character automatically fail for the rest of the scene. Do you think that mght be workable?

You mean like a condition monitor to represent the tolerance of the target to the suggestion of the attacker ?!
It's a good idea.


When it's built, the suggestion is considered an unacceptable order, and every attempt will automatically fail...


Plus we can combine it to the construction of a real long lasting intimacy of dislike towards the attacker which will increase the target's MDV for any interaction coming from the attacker.


I think / feel it should be somehow connected to Temperance...

 

[IanPrice]

Felt I'd contribute some more ideas to this thread, since I've decided on a house rule that fits the needs of my upcoming game. I'm going to be using a refinement on the Intimacy rules:


There are four virtues, and for each, there is an Ideal which may form.


- The Valorous harbor Loyalties, but may only sustain as many as their Temperance. Loyalties protect relationships based on shared goals and actions to people or groups. Actions which directly violate a loyalty, such as "kill your superior officer," are unacceptable orders from natural mental influence. The loyalty must be eroded first. On the other hand, natural mental influence from the subject of a loyalty which is in line with the shared goals it represents may not be ignored even after spending two willpower.


- The Compassionate enjoy Intimacies, but cannot sustain them if they lack Conviction. Intimacies protect relationships based on emotions. Emotions which directly contradict an intimacy disappear without spending willpower to resist them in (6 - Conviction) actions. Emotions supported by an intimacy do not disappear for at least (Compassion) scenes, unless actively resisted.


- The Temperate recognize Duties, a capacity limited by the Compassion with which they can care for them. When currently performing a Duty, it is sacrosanct from natural mental influence, and cannot be eroded by those means. Every time the Duty is successfully performed, it is reinforced by that scene. Successfully convincing a character that an action falls under one of his Duties extends both of these effects to that action.


- The Convicted pursue Commitments, and must be Valorous enough to pursue them all with vigor. Commitments are strong beliefs based on personal experience, providing +2 MDV to resist opposing mental influence, but -2 to resist influence supported by it.


The first virtue mentioned is the health levels of the Ideal type - takes that many scenes of effort to build or erode one. The second virtue is the maximum number of that type of ideal the character can sustain. For 3bp or 6xp, a character may choose to embrace Idealism, gaining a number of generic Ideal slots equal to Willpower (replacing the rule about increasing starting intimacies to Compassion + Willpower). Newly created characters may have up to their full compliment of Ideals.


The usual +1/-1 MDV bonus/penalty for a virtue opposing/supporting mental influence is used, as is the +3/-3 for Motivation, though instead of the usual Intimacy bonus, each sort of ideal provides its own bonuses as described above. If multiple Ideals oppose or support certain mental influences, the different effects stack up, including if some support and some oppose. When three or more apply in opposition, the bonuses apply against unnatural mental influence even if they normally would not. For example, if a king possessed Loyalty to his realm, and an Intimacy (love) for his queen, he could not simply ignore his adviser badgering him to take time off to sleep with her and produce an heir, nor would the lustful emotions that adviser stirred in him fade quickly on their own. On the other hand, if the king loved his queen, but hated the adviser, he could more easily shake off the emotion - though the call on his loyalty to the land would still nag him. If this king understood ruling justly as his Duty as well as being Committed to never reliving the war which killed his father, then no matter the honeyed words employed, an Eclipse diplomat's letter asking the king to enter into a military alliance against Lookshy in preparation for a sneak attack would be ignored and destroyed - the request violates a Loyalty, a Duty in action, and a Commitment all at once, and is thus unacceptable orders even though it may well be unnatural mental influence.

 

[Kyeudo]

Doesn't make sense, if you're caught off guard you are destabilized and you take a hit, but you could mitigate the effects for unexpected attacks, something like a maximum damage cap to preserve realism, so unexpected attacks still get you some benefits, but do not crush the target outright.

I hate caps. They are one of those fiddly bits that you often forget. Simple is better most of the time, and I think not being able to argue against it is definately an reasonable advantage to being caught off guard by someone's sudden statement.


I just remembered another problem a permanently up Dodge MDV would help solve: The problem of peer support. Suppose you have, instead of a 1 on 1 social combat, a 2 on 2 social combat. Teammates who are about to be swayed by the other side's arguements could be socially attacked by their own teammate to rebuild Intimacies under attack by their opponents. With a Dodge MDV that could be dropped, any 2 on 2 team would never be convinced unless socially one-shotted by the other side.

You mean like a condition monitor to represent the tolerance of the target to the suggestion of the attacker ?!


It's a good idea.


When it's built, the suggestion is considered an unacceptable order, and every attempt will automatically fail...


Plus we can combine it to the construction of a real long lasting intimacy of dislike towards the attacker which will increase the target's MDV for any interaction coming from the attacker.

I was meaning more a "this conversation is going in circles. I've already heard these arguements before. Now, lets talk on something less serious" sort of thing. Social combat should not automatically make people dislike each other. They just happen to differ on an important issue.


For the mechanics of it, I was thinking that after suffering a failed social attack, the defender can choose to add a level to this special Intimacy (we need a good name for it, since it should expire with the end of the scene). Adding to it is optional, so two people who want something from the other might choose to not add to it. If someone wants to reduce the level of the terminating intimacy, the target it with a social attack against the other, using social damage to tear it down. Think that would be a good enough system?


I dislike basing things on Virtues if it isn't very obviously necessary. It helps keep one Virtue from being more important than another.

I think / feel it should be somehow connected to Temperance...

 

[IanPrice]

Unnatural Mental Influence terms updates for my house rules:


Compulsions are unnaturally created Duties.


Illusions are unnaturally created Commitments.


Servitude effects are unnaturally created Loyalties.


Unnaturally created emotional Intimacies are now called Passions, to distinguish them from natural Intimacies.


In addition to any special rules applied by the charms which create them, all Unnatural Ideals mimic their natural analogs. They take up mental space just like any Ideal unless the charm specifies otherwise. If built with a charm which is Unnatural influence but does not specify anything about establishing mental effects, use the following default additional rules for each:


Compulsions may not be voluntarily left derelict, unlike natural Duties, without suppressing Temperance (this would normally call for a Temperance roll in those with 3+).


Illusions may represent beliefs which are obviously not true. Evidence to the contrary cannot be noticed without illusion-suppressing magic, or the intervention of another character and suppressing Conviction to listen to them (voluntarily acting against a normal Commitment would be call for a Conviction roll if rated at 3+).


Servitude effects cannot be eroded by the actions of the servant or the master, unless the servant suppresses Valor (voluntarily eroding a Loyalty would call for a Valor roll in those who possess 3+).


Passions instill their relevant emotion automatically in any scene when their subject is present or mentioned, unless Compassion is suppressed (Those with Compassion 3+ experience a similar upwelling of emotion in the presence of their Intimacies, when their Compassion roll garners successes and is not suppressed).


If specific charm effects contradict these effects, the charm effects supersede.