[Diaspora] social conflict questions

[Andrew Codispoti]

Thanks everyone for your comments!

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Buzz <buzz at buzzmo.com> wrote:
>>  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).

I definitely made the map far too big. I am leaning towards trying out
the space combat map for our next social combat.

Later on in the session I created a few physical conflict maps. These
were also too big considering the spaces involved. This has a lot to
do with my lack of experience in Fate. Where's the sweet spot in
number of zones? After this session, it feels as if anywhere from 5 to
9 would be great, but larger is too big.

> 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.

The connections between the characters and the conflict were a little
tenuous. I was relying on their allegiances and connections to the
involved groups to pull them in (one PC was a member of the knights,
another did business with that group, others were highly visible
community members). In retrospect, I should have left the situation as
roleplay until they decided to get involved.

>>  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!

This is heartening!

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:39 PM, C. W. Marshall <toph at interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
> I think a concession is right in this case. If someone wants out of a fight,
> and everyone lets them go, then it is easy to negotiate. The set-up of the
> conflict suggests that they are active in the quarrel: that means that if
> someone (friend or foe) did not want the peaceful player to leave, they
> could make it hard for them to do so -- demanding a higher concession value,
> and risking having the player stay.

I should have had the player offer a concession and walk out on the
conflict. I suggested throwing up obstructions as a way to "keep them
in the game." If my map had been smaller, the conflict would have been
over sooner and I wouldn't have worried so much about the player
feeling left out! Next time: the map is a lot smaller, and if a
character's not interested, they walk.

--
Andrew