Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approach!

[IanPrice]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


In Task Resolution, how Exalted does everything, Baker notes that the stakes are "succeed/fail," and states a preference for "win/lose" stakes (conflict resolution), where you can't get a "good" roll but still not get what you were going for. However, Baker's examples with the safe seem more about whether or not the GM is being a jerk than system assumptions, to me. I also disagree with him about suspense. There's less suspense the second time you watch a mystery, or any tense drama, because uncertainty and the unknown are an essential part of it. Long story short, I respect the thinking Forge guys like him are doing, but they're often too wrapped up in this high concept stuff to see when they're fixing what isn't broken, or not addressing the real issue between people.


Exalted has one conflict resolution system: shaping combat. When one raksha weaves a ring, cup, staff, or sword narrative against another, whoever loses all their (grace) health levels is inflicted with the winner's objective conditions. This is very similar to the tug of war or race to a total seen in some other conflict resolution systems, such as Mouse Guard, or the new WoD chase rules. I like these multi-step conflict resolutions better than single step ones, because they do allow for more suspense and tension - however, I still like task resolution better, in general. Conflict resolution is often too abstract, as well, because there isn't a direct connection between what action you try to take and the results you get. Consider Baker's own example: if the supposed GM had actually planned out the layout of clues in the room, then one conflict resolution sequence requires him to tell the player who wanted to search the safe about the clue in the trash instead, if there was no clue in the safe. In other words, I feel like the challenge to creativity and problem solving is dumbed down in a system where you get exactly what you want if you roll well.


Unless telepathy or the equivalent gets involved, people don't truly know each others' minds. For this reason, I support task-resolution based social combat. Unless you knew ahead of the attempt that the girl had been raped by her last lover, you wouldn't know about the taint her damaged psyche would put on the intimacy of love you're working to build. You don't know there's a deranged "love will hurt me" ideal there, so you can't address it until you know. And so on.

 

[cyl]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


The problem with conflict resolution is that there are no phases (unless you use opposed tests, in which case ticks are not appropriate).


It's too simplistic and generic to be effectively challenging, which is of course the core of exalted.


Your example with video games was quite appropriate; in most cases you have a "technique" to get what you want socially from a character.


In most good RPGs favoring interactions with team members NPCs (Kotor - Mass Effect 1 & 2) however you have various options... with different results.


Task resolution is a more appropriate and necessary IMHO (unfortunately) because it lets the player decides the How (he knows the Why, but he needs to get there and that's the challenge), instead of having the ST determining it after the successes on his rolls.


To me the logic for social combat should be the same as standard combat:


- the system allows you to do pretty much anything (including long term influence, the same way you can scar someone or cut his limb)


- the charms enhance your natural abilities and create special effects (counter attacks / holy damage / unexpected among others)


To be honest I'm more of a "let them find the solution and help them" (task) than a "let's not bother with too much detail, it will slow us down" (conflict)... mainly because I like to focus on the consequences of the actions of the pcs and drama/cinematics... when someone's infiltrating a castle, I don't want to have them rolling only once.


There should be various steps to the infiltration, and those steps should depend on the choices and successes of the player.


Is he going to get rid of the sentinel, is he going to risk climbing to avoid them etc etc


I'm not saying this is what exalted should look like, but it's what I like to do, and I think it should be the same with social combat.

 

[Kyeudo]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


I think this discussion of task and conflict based resolution systems has people looking at the wrong "tasks". The task you are performing when you are making your social attack isn't "I tell her she's beutiful", that's the stunt. Instead, the task is "I want to make her love me."

 

[IanPrice]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


Repeated reminder - according to the actual rules, unless modified by house rules, the task to be resolved is compelling one of the following: an action taking up to one scene, a change of intimacy by one level, or the expenditure of a willpower point. The last is an option for the defender in lieu of suffering whichever of the former the attacker chose. This is the task resolution I refer to.

 

[wordman]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa

Repeated reminder - according to the actual rules, unless modified by house rules, the task to be resolved is compelling one of the following: an action taking up to one scene, a change of intimacy by one level, or the expenditure of a willpower point.

Them's all just monkey dancin'.


My basic point here is, I think, getting lost in terminology I probably shouldn't have brought up in the first place. The basic point is that there is a cruical peice missing from those three tasks: intent.


Take the seduction example. Exactly none of those three tasks tell you anything about if the seducer got what they wanted (i.e. sex). Maybe he built the crap out of an Intimacy in the target, directed at himself, but so what? Intimacy's don't really mean anything anyway. You might say that, well, a "decent GM" would know what to do in that situation. And you'd probably be right. The problem is that, if it is going to be that hand-wavy, GM-uses-common-sense, why bother having a social combat system in the first place? The exact people who would use the system "right" would be the exact people that didn't really need it to begin with.


Now, if there really is to be a "minimalist" approach make social combat "work", I think the trick to it is in making the intent and the stakes clear, and representing how the outcome of those tests resolve those stakes. Maybe it is as simple as saying "here is what it actually means that this Intimacy exists, here is what it means that it doesn't exist, and here is what it may mean if you try to force this Intimacy and fail" from the outset and then let the fighting over the level of the Intimacy commence. For this to work, however, you need buy-in from the players at the start when social combat is used against them, or the whole thing falls apart.

 

[cyl]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa

I think this discussion of task and conflict based resolution systems has people looking at the wrong "tasks". The task you are performing when you are making your social attack isn't "I tell her she's beutiful", that's the stunt. Instead, the task is "I want to make her love me."

In this case, I don't think so.


The task is telling her she's beautiful (success: she believes me, failure: she does not) and the conflict / objective / why is "making her love me".


The CR system would have you make one (or maybe a few it was not clear), while the TR system requires a roll per task you choose.


But if the point was to minimalize the social combat (as the title of the thread suggests), then yes CR is obviously the best approach.


A few rolls and you go after your objective stunting your ass off ! :mrgreen:


Although I am not sure it is what Exalted Social Combat should look like.

 

[Kyeudo]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa

In this case, I don't think so.


The task is telling her she's beautiful (success: she believes me, failure: she does not) and the conflict / objective / why is "making her love me".

I thought the goal here was to end up with me and her naked in the same bed. Making her love me is just one step along the road.

 

[IanPrice]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa

Take the seduction example. Exactly none of those three tasks tell you anything about if the seducer got what they wanted (i.e. sex).

Uh... you're just flat wrong. You can persuade her to have sex with you. It only takes a scene to have sex, so that falls right under "compel one scene of behavior." Unless it's epic sex. Then you can, I guess, build an intimacy of lust and just keep convincing her (using the sex itself probably) to keep having sex with you. Mechanically, you can only not do this if your dice are less than her MDV (which might be quite high if she has intimacies and high virtues against you or it'd indirectly be unhelpful to her motivation), or if it actually violates her motivation directly. Or, of course, if she spends willpower to resist.


The point of first convincing her to spend time with you, then convincing her she likes you, then convincing her to lower her guard around you, then convincing her after you've done all those steps to actually sleep with you is to prevent it from making sense to spend willpower against you. It also gives you time to establish common preconceptions with each other, so that when you convince her to do you, you'll both be thinking of the same thing - whether that's simply vanilla lovemaking, or the kinkiest romp you both can think of.

 

[cyl]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


Thing is there is nothing stopping her to resist every attempt and to get physical with you (you clueless bastard). So even if you exploit the system, you can still fail.


The conflict resolution - minimalist approach without any resisting mechanism aside from MDV is still your best option if you're looking for something easy & fast, though you could use the standards for successes (from simple to legendary) to determine the quality of your success.

 

[IanPrice]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


It was a 100% inaccurate statement when wordman claimed that none of the three outcomes of a social attack had anything to do with the attacker getting what he wants.


Your calling me names is unhelpful.


Yes, she can spend willpower to resist and/or get physical. What's your point? That has nothing at all to do with the argument I was refuting. You want to take willpower out of the equation? Fine, just don't be surprised if people feel a little cheated when the social-combat-monster takes them to school and they have no out. The willpower out exists so GMs and players alike can tell each other, "stop playing my character, (s)he REALLY doesn't want to do that and won't." Personally, I like that it takes powerful magic to subvert someone's will entirely, instead of just a few pretty words.

 

[cyl]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


twas a trait of humor :roll:


You know, clueless because your pc would continue seducing a woman who is actively resisting him.

 

[wordman]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


Reading more closely shows me three things:


1) Ian is right that I am wrong.


2) I can become sort of un-wrong simply by changing the example. If the intent of the seducer is to have sex with the target later that night instead of right now, he's out of luck by the rules as written. Even if all he wants to do now is plant a compulsion for her to meet him later on (so then he socially attack to have sex right then), he can't actually do that. I suppose there is charm effect that could but, again, at that point why bother with having a social combat system?


3) Social combat as written is even goofier than I remember:


Solar: My prince! I'd like you to sign this peace treaty with the swamp people. (Successful natural influence roll.)


Prince: Hell no. Never. (Automatically resists with his "Exterminate all of the swamp people" Motivation)


Solar: (Social flurry) Well, at least make me your adviser. (Successful natural influence roll.) Or let me have sex with your wife. (successful unnatural influence roll, with magical backing.) Or let me marry your daughter (successful unnatural influence roll, with magical backing). Or your son (same)... etc.


Prince. No (spends Willpower). No (spends Willpower). No (spends Willpower)... etc... No (spends last Willpower).


Solar: Well, then I guess you should just bend your daughter over the arm of your throne and sodomize her in front of your court. (Successful unnatural influence roll, with magical backing.)


Prince: (Lacking any Willpower) Sure! But only for the next 20 minutes. After that it will be wrong... all of the sudden.


(And, while the prince is going at it, since he has only resisted natural influence with willpower once this scene, any member of the court that can get past his MDV can also make him their bitch. For 20 minutes.)


Anyway...


So, as written, the system has these three outcomes. Where does that leave us? Ian, I'm not tuned into what your angle is here, regarding the request made by the original poster. Are you saying that "social combat is fine as is" or "here is the 'minimalist' tweak I think is needed" or what?

 

[Kyeudo]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


I doubt there is a good "minimalist" fix possible. So many things need changed. The two Willpower rule needs removed, Willpower as health levels needs removed, unnatural mental influence needs changed, etc.

 

[cyl]

Re: Yet another social combat thread - The Minimalist Approa


Well in most rpgs the minimalist approach is taken.


You make your roll either in opposition or against a TN depending on the target's attribute, and the result indicates your winning / loosing.


It's really not that hard to imagine it transposed to exalted (since it's already the case with charms & UMIs), you just gotta change the effects of NMIs a bit, and you are mostly done.