[Diaspora] social conflict questions

[Buzz]

>  We're playing a fantasy game,  so the skill list is a little
>  different. The scenario was this: four PCs are drinking in a tavern
>  when a verbal fight breaks out between a group of town militia and a
>  group of the knights of a military order newly arrived in the area.

If the conflict was between two groups of NPCs, what was the PCs' stake in it? Why were they participating?

I ask partly because of this:

>  The map was sort of diamond shape, with five zones on a home row,
>  three zones each on the rows above and below that, and a single zone
>  at the vertical ends.

That's, what, 12 zones? That means the "clock" for the conflict is 12 turns. That's a pretty big, long conflict! The 
example in the book is something like 7 zones, and that covered an entire election cycle (a year of in-game time).

Ergo, my first piece of advice would be to always keep the scope of the conflict in mind. Your zone map seems pretty 
complex given the in-game circumstances. If you want to make movement difficult, I would focus on setting pass 
values on the zone borders, rather than creating more zones.

>  First question we ran across was: what skill to use to move? It's not
>  called out in the rules (as far as I can see) so we decided that if we
>  could justify the movement by describing it as a use of a certain
>  skill, that was fair.

Absolutely. Any skill can be valid given the right context. Remember that movement in social conflict is about 
movement towards or away from ideas. Sometimes you'll do that with Bureaucracy, sometimes with Science, Oratory, 
or even Demolitions! ("I'll show you how to build the bomb... but not without your faction's vote.")

>  If a player wants a character to walk out of a situation, how do you
>  model this? I liked how this player handled it because it meant a
>  concentrated move could break down the obstruction and bring the
>  character back in to the conflict, but it did play a bit of havoc with
>  our perception of the physical situation ("did she make it out the
>  door yet? is she still packing?").

Don't worry about physical location. What matters is whether they are continuing to participate in the conflict or not; 
they don't need to leave the room in order to give up on a conversation, after all.

Throwing up obstructions is, by definition, participation in the conflict. I.e., they are still trying to affect the outcome. 
If the player literally wants to give up on the conflict, that's a concession... unless they don't have a horse in the race, 
in which case it's just one less participant and the conflict continues.

Ergo, the answer to "Did she make it out the  door yet?" is up to the player. Either they have their PC leave or they 
don't. Only personal combat can stop them. :)

>  What sorts of
>  Aspects do you use Maneuvers to place during a social combat? And does
>  it happen very often, as compared to Move or Move Another?

It can happen often, again depending on the context of the conflict.

Aspects can be anything. The book gives an example of "Long-winded anecdote" placed on a zone, which could be 
used to hamper an opponent's ability to move out of the zone. Or putting a "Liar!" Aspect on an opponent directly. Or 
putting the Aspect "Smacks of Treason" on an entire scene.

Just like in the other mini-games, you want to put Aspects into play that help you, hinder others, or do both.

>  I'd welcome your thoughts on the map and on the decision to start the
>  PCs off on the opposite side of the map from the rest of the conflict
>  (this did mean that some of them were more interested in staying on
>  their side of the whole situation than in jumping in, so we ended up
>  with a few active players while most sat at their table quietly
>  drinking).

I would say that, if the PCs are not committed to the conflict, there is no conflict. It's just a scene where the PCs are 
watching some NPCs have an argument. Conflicts (of any sort, not just social) should only be played out if the players 
have a vested interest in their outcome. If they do not, it's just scenery, so simply let events take their course. Save 
the dice for when the table cares about what's going on.

>  Altogether we had a great time, but we did have to stop a few times
>  and discuss what was happening. I think this was mainly due to the
>  abstract nature of social combat, and that it just takes a bit of
>  getting used to.

It does. The fist social conflict I ran was incredibly lame. The second was awesome!