Social Conflicts? (Dresden Files RPG)

[Kilmrak]

My group and I have been dedicated D&D 3.5 players for years and we just switched over to Dresden Files RPG which uses the FATE system, so we've had to do a bit of adjusting. We have had three sessions and finished the first arc so I feel like we have a pretty decent grasp on the system but I've run into a problem with social conflicts and being "Taken Out" in one.

So we seem to have issues with situations like if one character is trying to trick another character into going with her to a specific location by way of social interaction. So this looks like a social conflict to me but one of my players doesn't like this because it feels like if his character lost this conflict it would take the control out of his hands.

So are we using social conflicts incorrectly or is it a coping issue? I'm hoping the playground can help me understand this part of the system better, thanks in advance.

[jindra34]

Your completely right that it is a use of social conflict rules. But do remind the player worrying about losing control of their character that there are rules for bowing out on your terms.

[kyoryu]

To a certain extent that's necessary for social conflict rules to have any meaning whatsoever. If the loser of the social conflict can't be coerced into anything, why even have the system in place?

Think of the system as a way to answer the question: "Does this person get convinced to go with the other person?" If the system isn't allowed to answer the question, there's no point in using it.

That said, one of the frequent ways of looking at things is that losing represents an agreement to do something, not necessarily a changed belief. So in that case, maybe the character agrees to go with - but is convinced that they're going to be betrayed and is doing it to set up the person that they're going with, or something along those lines.

[kyoryu]

Also, now that I think about it a bit more... usually you enter a Social Conflict when both sides want something from the other - in other words, both sides have something to gain.

If not, I don't really think you're obligated to enter the Conflict, unless there's some narrative reason for it (like you're being held prisoner or the like). There's no reason you can't just say "sod off" and walk away.

So making sure that both sides have something to gain is probably a good way of making the mechanic more palatable.

[Kilmrak]

Thank you guys for the quick responses, your insights have been very helpful for how I see social conflicts and i'm sure my players will like it better now. So as a segue to another problem, my player is also concerned with the fact that if in a social conflict he gets taken out then couldn't anyone just attack him again and get him to do whatever they wanted since his stress track and consequences are full or is it officially a new scene?

[jindra34]

Thank you guys for the quick responses, your insights have been very helpful for how I see social conflicts and i'm sure my players will like it better now. So as a segue to another problem, my player is also concerned with the fact that if in a social conflict he gets taken out then couldn't anyone just attack him again and get him to do whatever they wanted since his stress track and consequences are full or is it officially a new scene?

Your taken out, and until a new scene starts you can't engage or be engaged in that field of combat. Or at least be further harmed by being so engaged.

[kyoryu]

Your taken out, and until a new scene starts you can't engage or be engaged in that field of combat. Or at least be further harmed by being so engaged.

Yup. That's what "Taken Out" means. You're out of the scene.

Once the next scene starts, your stress tracks will reset. Consequences don't, though.

[jindra34]

Yup. That's what "Taken Out" means. You're out of the scene.

Once the next scene starts, your stress tracks will reset. Consequences don't, though.

Well taken out Socially won't prevent you from punching someone in the face. And Physically won't always prevent insult slinging (dead and unconscious still do for obvious reasons though).

[kyoryu]

Well taken out Socially won't prevent you from punching someone in the face. And Physically won't always prevent insult slinging (dead and unconscious still do for obvious reasons though).

Depending on how you're narrated as Taken Out. If the Taken Out status is "you leave", you're not getting involved in any additional face punching :)

[Kilmrak]

Ok so that parts all about the narration of how the character is "Taken Out". I really appreciate the quick replies and if I have any more issue I'll post on this thread so keep an eye out, Thanks.

[elliott20]

another thing that you see in some games is the compromise rule. if one side bulldozes the other with barely any scratch on himself, the winner gets everything he wants and the loser gets nothing.

but if the winner only wins by a very very small margin, then maybe the loser gets a compromise too. either the winner only gets very little of he wants, and the loser gets nothing, or the winner gets what he wants... but so does the loser. (just not as much)

the exact outcome can be negotiated in this fashion.

of course, this is if you're taken out involuntarily.

nothing stops you from just conceding and then narrating your exit like people have said.

[Drachasor]

Thank you guys for the quick responses, your insights have been very helpful for how I see social conflicts and i'm sure my players will like it better now. So as a segue to another problem, my player is also concerned with the fact that if in a social conflict he gets taken out then couldn't anyone just attack him again and get him to do whatever they wanted since his stress track and consequences are full or is it officially a new scene?

Also note that the player NEVER has to use his consequences if he doesn't want to. Getting taken out just means that you lose the conflict and the opponent decides in general terms what that means. How the losing character acts, what the losing character is thinking, etc, is up to the losing character. There's no reason to take consequences unless you are really putting it all on the line. Remember that consequences are universal, so if you take a minor social consequences, then you can't take a minor physical consequence.

Heck, in a physical fight if you know you won't be killed, can't win, and can't escape, not taking a physical consequence can be a very good idea (you just lose quicker and have fewer permanent injuries). Of course a bad guy can decide to inflict a consequence on you if you get taken out.

And like people mentioned, players should remember concessions where they agree to some lesser penalty without getting taken out. And, if all else fails, you can turn a social conflict into a physical one.

Though, I find one of the trickiest bits with the FATE system is the skill system. There are 3+ defense skills, 3 "hp" skills, multiple attack skills for each type of conflict. Toss in the fact even a difference of 1 rank is a pretty big deal and you have a system where balance and competence is hard to come by. Maybe it was partly my group as well, since they didn't like doing maneuvers with their actions (which, to be honest, can feel weak when you have 3 ranks or something in a skill).

[kyoryu]

Though, I find one of the trickiest bits with the FATE system is the skill system. There are 3+ defense skills, 3 "hp" skills, multiple attack skills for each type of conflict. Toss in the fact even a difference of 1 rank is a pretty big deal and you have a system where balance and competence is hard to come by. Maybe it was partly my group as well, since they didn't like doing maneuvers with their actions (which, to be honest, can feel weak when you have 3 ranks or something in a skill).

Wow. Maneuver/Create Advantage is pretty much the go-to move in every Fate game I've been part of.

https://plus.google.com/108546067488...ts/2hHTAEucYRW

[Drachasor]

Wow. Maneuver/Create Advantage is pretty much the go-to move in every Fate game I've been part of.

https://plus.google.com/108546067488...ts/2hHTAEucYRW

I think my group has trouble adapting to new systems.

[kyoryu]

I think my group has trouble adapting to new systems.

Not unheard of. And there's a few things in Fate that don't work like most RPGs, even if they make *more* sense outside of RPG tropes.

I usually find it best to just lay it out with people "and here's how this works. And here's how to strategize this" for a bit, until they make the adaptation.

Because man, Maneuver/Create Advantage is like the *heart* of the system. Banging on the Attack key doesn't let the system shine, and is a really substandard tactic besides.

[jindra34]

Because man, Maneuver/Create Advantage is like the *heart* of the system. Banging on the Attack key doesn't let the system shine, and is a really substandard tactic besides.

Well except, to some degree and at some gradiations, for DFRG casters. Because they can jack the numbers high without needing them, and often high enough to make big hits that make tough choices off the bat.

[kyoryu]

Well except, to some degree and at some gradiations, for DFRG casters. Because they can jack the numbers high without needing them, and often high enough to make big hits that make tough choices off the bat.

I'll accept that.

But CA/Maneuver is also how you get around poor skill matchups.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Concessions are basically how you achieve the "comprimise" condition.

A social conflict should be entered into with a setting of the stakes. Boil it down to the intention of the initiator, and leave their methods out of it for the moment. Do that for both sides.

Character A: I want Character B to come with me.
Character B: I want Character A to beat it.

The stakes are now clear: if Character A wins, Character B comes with them. If Character B wins, Character A goes away for this scene.

This actually opens up options for Character A. They can open by using skills to lie and trick, but they can also shift over to threats or truthful persuasion. And it helps to make the conflict much more clear in the minds of the players.

And yes, absolutely remind them about concessions--these are the best way for a character to get out of a jam and get someone off their back. In a social conflict, concessions are all about "I'll just give you something you want to keep you off my back". It's not everything they wanted, but it's a small amount that's satisfactory.

[kyoryu]

And yes, absolutely remind them about concessions--these are the best way for a character to get out of a jam and get someone off their back. In a social conflict, concessions are all about "I'll just give you something you want to keep you off my back". It's not everything they wanted, but it's a small amount that's satisfactory.

Reasonable concessions for this case could include things like "Okay, I'll come with you, but I'm stopping by home first" - at which point they arm themselves or tell their friends where they're going.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Reasonable concessions for this case could include things like "Okay, I'll come with you, but I'm stopping by home first" - at which point they arm themselves or tell their friends where they're going.

Oooooooooooooooh. Yeah. I should've thought of that one; it's a classic.

[Kilmrak]

Concessions are basically how you achieve the "comprimise" condition.

A social conflict should be entered into with a setting of the stakes. Boil it down to the intention of the initiator, and leave their methods out of it for the moment. Do that for both sides.

Character A: I want Character B to come with me.
Character B: I want Character A to beat it.

The stakes are now clear: if Character A wins, Character B comes with them. If Character B wins, Character A goes away for this scene.

This actually opens up options for Character A. They can open by using skills to lie and trick, but they can also shift over to threats or truthful persuasion. And it helps to make the conflict much more clear in the minds of the players.

And yes, absolutely remind them about concessions--these are the best way for a character to get out of a jam and get someone off their back. In a social conflict, concessions are all about "I'll just give you something you want to keep you off my back". It's not everything they wanted, but it's a small amount that's satisfactory.

This example is perfect for explaining social conflicts to my players, Thank you

[Kilmrak]

Reasonable concessions for this case could include things like "Okay, I'll come with you, but I'm stopping by home first" - at which point they arm themselves or tell their friends where they're going.

Also, this is a great example of a concession to show my players.

[Raum]

So are we using social conflicts incorrectly or is it a coping issue?

Depends on the intent. If the two are trying not to harm each other a Contest (YS193) would be more appropriate. The Conflict rules are generally for situations that cannot be resolved cleanly. Whether slinging mud or shooting bullets, it gets messy.

That said, I would be wary of using the game rules as a bludgeon between players. Unless it's 'that' type of game of course.

It's also worth noting that consequences from this type of infighting will (and should) weaken the party when they go up against other opponents. Not only are the consequence slots taken so they can't be used defensively but the aspects may also be used against them when appropriate. I'd even be tempted to hang a "Group with Issues" situational aspect on them if their teamwork has started to fall apart.

[kyoryu]

Depends on the intent. If the two are trying not to harm each other a Contest (YS193) would be more appropriate. The Conflict rules are generally for situations that cannot be resolved cleanly. Whether slinging mud or shooting bullets, it gets messy.

That said, I would be wary of using the game rules as a bludgeon between players. Unless it's 'that' type of game of course.

It's also worth noting that consequences from this type of infighting will (and should) weaken the party when they go up against other opponents. Not only are the consequence slots taken so they can't be used defensively but the aspects may also be used against them when appropriate. I'd even be tempted to hang a "Group with Issues" situational aspect on them if their teamwork has started to fall apart.

"I Don't Trust Bob" is a pretty good Consequence to take in an intra-party social conflict.

As far as the bludgeoning goes... I go back to the idea that both sides have to basically *agree* to the Conflict. So both sides should be risking something. If that's not the case, then one party just says "sod off" and walks away. "I declare a Conflict!" isn't some kind of magic device that magically welds a character to the spot.

Here's a great example of this. The bouncer doesn't even engage in the Conflict until the woman's made it clear she's going to cause a scene.
(NSFW language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmiVlyAfTnw