Talk:Social Conflict

From Fixalted
Jump to: navigation, search

Democritus: Maybe it's a good idea to split the Charm-edits off into a seperate section?

Also I was wondering if you guys would be so kind as to somehow credit me for my part in the development? Parts of thsi version are based on Strangeloopers version which is based on my version which is based on Aaron Peoris inintial idea of tickless social combat

Strangelooper: Good ideas on both counts. I'll copy my links to your and Similarion's original ideas for the system! Strangelooper 13:23, 13 October 2007 (PDT)

If you whip up four Solars or such that I could use as pre-made characters, I'd love to run a playtest of this. As is, though, I've no idea what sort of characters I should build. -RiotGearEpsilon 15:33, 14 October 2007 (PDT)

I have reverted the "spelling correction". I think this whole project will work more smoothly if everyone treats British and American spellings as equally valid alternatives.

--Bazzalisk 01:27, 15 October 2007 (PDT)

Democritus: I agree, where general talk is concerned but when it comes to rules-terms such as the Ability name (Socialize) or the Virtue (Valor) I think using the "official" spelling, as used by White Wolf (obviously american) is the one-true-way(tm)
Discussion moved to the Project:Community Portal page. Democritus

Pip, do you mind if I move your Dragonblooded and Lunar charm conversions over to separate pages, and reformat them to look like the Solar and Sidereal charms? Strangelooper 07:02, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

Not at all, go right ahead. --Bazzalisk 08:05, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

Done. I'd like to edit the main text of Social Conflict for grammar and spelling, if you don't mind? Some of the longer sentences would be more clear if split into 2+ sentences. I'll stick to the Queen's English :)

Also, there are few changes I'd like to suggest:

1) Composure: Yeah, good idea. Let's drop it completely and delete all references to it. The MDV refreshing seems to accomplish what Composure was intended to do (make sure one person doesn't completely dominate a social conflict scene). Simpler = better.
2)"Steeling" oneself. I originally put that in before the whole damage/soak rules were there; I think it's unnecessary now (and needlessly complicating). It also encourages the use of Dodge MDV over Parry (devaluing social skills), something I was trying to avoid by lowering DMDV in the first place.
Alternatively, we could use "Steeling" to increase social soak or give social Hardness. But I'd rather just excise it completely.
3) Limit gain: I re-read the bit that acting against ANY natural Influence counts as suppressing the virtue for the purpose of limit. I'm not sure if this is a good thing. Acting against Overwhelming Influences causes Limit gain; this was intended as a reward for an attacker who got a high number of damage successes, and a penalty for a defender having low Virtues (more easily overwhelmed). If acting against ANY Influence gains you Limit, the distinction is lost...
Also, it's not clear from your text that spending WP to resist an Unnatural Mental Influence causes Limit gain. I think that should be explicit.
4) Virtue Channels. I'd like to make use of Virtue Channels not dependent on Willpower. ie you can spend a Virtue Channel to get +(Virtue) dice on a roll, without the need to also spend a Willpower. It's a fairly major change from the corebook, but it would make following Influences more rewarding. And frankly, there are enough WP drains on PCs - I'd rather see more cool combos anyways.
5) What do you think of this idea: When violating an Influence, you must mark off a Virtue channel - you only get the option of spending WP when you're down to zero channels in that Virtue. Again, this is intended to place more emphasis on high Virtue scores. It does somewhat restrict player choice though.

Let me know what you think of any/all of these suggestions. I'll be happy to go ahead and put in any edits we agree on. Strangelooper 12:16, 21 October 2007 (PDT)

Those all sound good to me. --Bazzalisk 01:32, 22 October 2007 (PDT)

Strangelooper 07:03, 23 October 2007 (PDT)Done, I think. Maybe some minor editing left.

Are you open to changing the parry calculations? Manipulation seems like it's pulling a lot of weight in Social Conflict, as the basis for all attacks and all parries. Now, I like how you've got Manipulation and Charisma working for attacks and damage, it makes a lot of sense. But I'd like to mix up the parries a bit - I'd hate for every character to have to max out Manipulation just in order to have a decent Excellenciable social defense. More variety in viable character builds is better, IMO. We could keep it at 3 parry values, but change up the Attribute for each. I'm thinking the 3 PMDVs could be:

1) (Charisma+Performance)/2 to represent expostulations and denials;
2) (Manipulation+Presence)/2 for counterarguments; and
3) (Wits+Investigation)/2 as poking holes in the Speaker's argument.

What do you think?

Strangelooper 10:52, 29 October 2007 (PDT) I playtested this system fairly extensively over my last two game sessions with my group, usign the modified PMDVs I suggested above. For the most part, it worked really well! One issue is that, at least when arguing among equals (a circle of Solars trying to convince each other of a course of action), the minimum damage rules made Charisma and Integrity completely irrelevent. My Essence 4 Solars were all rolling minimum damage every single time that they got past MDV - whether it was the Charisma 1 Night Caste vs the Integrity 4 Zenith, or the Charisma 4 Eclipse vs the Integrity 2 Night. Minimum damage ever time. The only time more than 4 damage dice were rolled were when the Eclipse was talking to an Essence 1, Integrity 0 mortal.

Now, they were being very straightforward and just going for the big hits (ie counter-motivation compulsions etc, with huge MDV bonuses) rather than building side intimacies first to bring down the MDVs. And the few times they got past MDV they did end up scoring only strength 1 or 2 Influences with their 4 dice of minimum damage. So it's possible that so it might be something that could be improved on - if they had been able to get the MDVs down with side Influences, then their big hit would have that many more extra damage dice, and they might have got an overwhelming influence. We'll have to try again with them using a bit more strategy. I hope we don't have to change the damage and soak rules, or eliminate minimum damage.

I'd also like to introduce a rule that lets a character generate an Emotion Influence on themself, in response to a failed social attack on them. Something like 'roll your Compassion vs your Temperance, and extra Compassion successes become the strength of the Emotion Influence). Possibly let them reduce an existing Emotion Influence by rolling Temperance vs Compassion (though it would intensify if the roll favoured Compassion...).

A thought that has occured to me, somewhere between 'no ping, success with no damage = weak' and essence ping is that your minimum damage dice is half your essence. I know it flat out contradicts the "you always roll at least your essence" rule, but virtues have about half the 'health' levels of physical. Which makes me think that a social ox-body charm is a pretty cool idea, if possibly a bit useless. Kvetch 04:11, 6 August 2008 (PDT)


It doesn't seem to say anywhere in the rules the precise mechanical advantage of creating a compulsion over a inimacy-type influence. They last a shorter period, and are harder to form.

My guess is that somewhere there is meant to be (or is, and I'm just missing it) a passage reading:

"Each action that a character takes not acting in line with a compulsion requires the character to spend a virtue channel (or temporary will power). Spending the channel decreases the strength of the compulsion as if it were an intimacy. Weak compulsions do not require channels to suppress." Overwhelming compulsions should probably die down to a proper rating at some stage.

- Kvetch 15:01, 15 August 2008 (PDT)