Kol Korran
2013-09-24, 11:46 PM
Hey again. I've been asking a lot of FATE related questions lately. Still trying to wrap my head around the system. On another thread dealing with lies, convincing and whether they should be open (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304738) I got a very interesting response from Kyoryu, which made me think
I'd generally see if I could reframe it as an active conflict rather than passive detection - I mean, you don't actually *know* if someone's lying to you unless you catch them in a contradiction, right?
I'd generally try to look for what's at stake - that is, what both sides are trying to get out of the interaction. Presumably, each side wants something from the other side. What is that, and what are they doing to get that?
Usually lie detection is done in a context - somebody may be trying to get you to do something, and you're determining whether you should do it or not. That's an active conflict of purposes - they want you to do something, and you want them to tell you the truth, or at least to trip themselves up, either of which will give you information.
....
A lot of the best way to make Fate work is figuring out the active conflicts, what's actually at stake, and use that to drive forward. Get the characters to agree to the stakes up front, and then go from there.
Our group had a lot of tense and political situations at the last scenario, but we dealt with it mostly in a very D&D way- when someone lies another just roll empathy against them, like the "sense motive" skill in D&D, when you try to persuade someone you roll rapport or deceive against a target number (usually the will of the person involved). Add aspects, fate points and such, but basically that's it.
All the roleplay was fun, but the single roll was boring. I think like the idea of agreeing upon the stakes upfront, and then have it be like a social conflict, or contest Between the opposing parties. In a previous adventure there were three characters (one an NPC) trying to decide on the course of action a town would make, and we made it into a contest, and it was a great fun.
So, I have some questions, and I'd love if you can explain them in context of two examples I'll give below.
When do you use a contest in social dealings, and when a conflict? from what I understand a conflict is used when the parties actually try to hurt each other. But I'm a bit fuzzy on what it means on "hurting each other" on social conflicts, as well as the meaning of stress and consequences in such a situation. The rules seem to give only the provoke skill the ability to attack, but I can easily see Rapport, Deceive and contacts used to socially attack or persuade someone to your point of view, even in non amiable ways.
The example situation (from my game) included a few problematic situations:
1) One of the big shots in a town (A sort of a mobster) tried to persuade the PCs to do some job for him, after they have bailed out of another job before. He considers a deal made as a word of honor. They tried to get him to let them go without getting mad at them, due to his power and influence. At some points threats (subtle ones, but still threats) were also used. How would you solve it? Contest? Conflict? one or two rolls? It was an important part of the session.
2) Later on, a lot of powers in that town tried to get the PCs, who were representatives from another town, to favor their faction in a sort of negotiations. This was done in tow parts: There was supposed to be a major meeting where this will be decided, but in the day or two before, some factions met with the PCs and laid down their offers, trying to get in their good favors. This was mostly roleplayed, with a few rolls here and there.
The meeting itself was a web of factions trying to vie against each other and convince the PCs to back them up, laying more urgent, more tempting offers, badmouthing the other factions and playing up to the PCs personalities and motives. The concept was that of a high ups crucial meeting, with a lot at stake. Again mostly some rolls.
How would you portray the first part in game mechanics, how would you portray the second part? I'm thinking the first might be done with roleplay only, or simple rolls/ contest to create an advantage or so (a better deal offered, or being in the PCs favor). The second one I'm thinking perhaps as an actual social conflict, with the PCs taking stress under such pressure and offers, needing to juggle between the factions before they wear out and become "convinced".
What do you think?
I'd generally see if I could reframe it as an active conflict rather than passive detection - I mean, you don't actually *know* if someone's lying to you unless you catch them in a contradiction, right?
I'd generally try to look for what's at stake - that is, what both sides are trying to get out of the interaction. Presumably, each side wants something from the other side. What is that, and what are they doing to get that?
Usually lie detection is done in a context - somebody may be trying to get you to do something, and you're determining whether you should do it or not. That's an active conflict of purposes - they want you to do something, and you want them to tell you the truth, or at least to trip themselves up, either of which will give you information.
....
A lot of the best way to make Fate work is figuring out the active conflicts, what's actually at stake, and use that to drive forward. Get the characters to agree to the stakes up front, and then go from there.
Our group had a lot of tense and political situations at the last scenario, but we dealt with it mostly in a very D&D way- when someone lies another just roll empathy against them, like the "sense motive" skill in D&D, when you try to persuade someone you roll rapport or deceive against a target number (usually the will of the person involved). Add aspects, fate points and such, but basically that's it.
All the roleplay was fun, but the single roll was boring. I think like the idea of agreeing upon the stakes upfront, and then have it be like a social conflict, or contest Between the opposing parties. In a previous adventure there were three characters (one an NPC) trying to decide on the course of action a town would make, and we made it into a contest, and it was a great fun.
So, I have some questions, and I'd love if you can explain them in context of two examples I'll give below.
When do you use a contest in social dealings, and when a conflict? from what I understand a conflict is used when the parties actually try to hurt each other. But I'm a bit fuzzy on what it means on "hurting each other" on social conflicts, as well as the meaning of stress and consequences in such a situation. The rules seem to give only the provoke skill the ability to attack, but I can easily see Rapport, Deceive and contacts used to socially attack or persuade someone to your point of view, even in non amiable ways.
The example situation (from my game) included a few problematic situations:
1) One of the big shots in a town (A sort of a mobster) tried to persuade the PCs to do some job for him, after they have bailed out of another job before. He considers a deal made as a word of honor. They tried to get him to let them go without getting mad at them, due to his power and influence. At some points threats (subtle ones, but still threats) were also used. How would you solve it? Contest? Conflict? one or two rolls? It was an important part of the session.
2) Later on, a lot of powers in that town tried to get the PCs, who were representatives from another town, to favor their faction in a sort of negotiations. This was done in tow parts: There was supposed to be a major meeting where this will be decided, but in the day or two before, some factions met with the PCs and laid down their offers, trying to get in their good favors. This was mostly roleplayed, with a few rolls here and there.
The meeting itself was a web of factions trying to vie against each other and convince the PCs to back them up, laying more urgent, more tempting offers, badmouthing the other factions and playing up to the PCs personalities and motives. The concept was that of a high ups crucial meeting, with a lot at stake. Again mostly some rolls.
How would you portray the first part in game mechanics, how would you portray the second part? I'm thinking the first might be done with roleplay only, or simple rolls/ contest to create an advantage or so (a better deal offered, or being in the PCs favor). The second one I'm thinking perhaps as an actual social conflict, with the PCs taking stress under such pressure and offers, needing to juggle between the factions before they wear out and become "convinced".
What do you think?