Revision as of 13:23, 11 June 2016

Back to Main Page
Chapter 3-C, Psychology, Social Conflict and Fear

Psychological Conflict

Not all social interaction is conflict, and not all conflict is overt. The goal of the system is not to duplicate realism, instead it is to model an interaction in an interesting way, that allows players to utilize the skills of their character in more ways. In most games, combat is an extensive minigame, while social interaction is little more than a binary resolution. Not so in Future Imperfect. Our goal is that not only is playing a social character more interesting, but it could also be useful in more situations.

During most social interactions, the Master and Crew can converse in character, and the action will progress naturally. Whenever one or more participants wishes to use a social skill, the psychological conflict mechanics become relevant. There are three general classes of social conflict actions: seduction, argument and threat.

Seduction

Argument

Threats

Stakes

Before initiating any social conflict, the initiator must make it clear what he is attempting to accomplish. Once both parties understand what is at stake, each has an opportunity to spend chips or otherwise affect the die roll. The Master must be sure that the player knows the potential consequences of each possibility. All declarations of stake are subject to Master approval.

Antares Darkeye wishes to blather the desk sergeant at the local precinct long enough for Harry to sneak past and get into the jailer’s office. He decides he will tell the sergeant a fictional story about a crime he witnessed last evening, and ensure to keep him engaged and unaware of the surroundings. Matt (the player of Antares) declares that if he can win this task, the sergeant is engaged in his story long enough for Harry to get past. If he is able to get a bump, Harry can get in and out without being seen. If Antares fails, however, the sergeant sees through the ruse and maintains his vigilance, noticing Harry before he can get to the jailer’s office.

Players should be encouraged to develop their entire stake scenario. If they have a good and creative set of circumstances the Master should make every effort to accommodate them. If the player does not have a full idea, or if the Master believes the proposed scenario is inappropriate, he should make a counter declaration to the player. The player should not draw until they know the stakes for all likely possibilities. Once the dice are cast, the action is taking place. There is no way to cancel the action, though if another player (or NPC!) wishes to attempt to interrupt, an opposed Reflexes check may be attempted, as described in the initiative section.

Fear and Compulsion

The universe is vast. It is also almost completely alien to everyone who lives there. No matter how much you have travelled, you have still experienced an infinitesimal amount of what is there, and even in that most miniscule sliver, some things are so terrifying that even the most hardened traveler is little more than a jellyfish in it's wake. Fear is how we model this. Fear is not common in every game, but we suggest it should be on the table nonetheless.

In Future Imperfect, fear is a passive psychological attack, meaning it does not take an action for the fear causing entity, though in some cases that entity may act in such a way as to magnify the effects with one of their actions. The severity of the fear will be annotated in the same nomenclature as a trait or skill. When a character becomes subject to fear, immediately stop the action and check for effects. This means a character can begin suffering fear effects before they take their action, possibly even losing it.

To determine the fear effect, use the base fear value like a skill or trait, and defend with 3+Bravery (Nerve). The effect level is also the fear value, shifted down one row per bump. Compare this effect to the willpower of the defending character, and deal one shock for each full multiple of the willpower, with the remainder applied as stress. Astute readers will note this is exactly the same as physical combat.

Shock

Shock is the psychological equivalent of wounds. Like wounds, shock can have a significant effect on actions the character wishes to perform. Unlike wounds, some actions are immune to this penalty. If a squad of klackon warriors is bearing down on you, jumping a chasm while running full tilt away is not negatively impacted...this is exactly what the fear is causing the character to do!

As soon as shock is dealt the Master will inform the player how the fear manifests. The Master should endeavor to keep it as general as possible, so the player maintains as much freedom as is reasonable. The Master has the final say on which actions will take penalties from shock, and should tell the player before any action is attempted. Some examples of good fear directives: Do not approach X, run away from Y, hold on for your life.

Each shock level is worth -1 to all actions that are not caused by the fear. Note that any character may only be affected by a single "fear directive" at any one time. If a character who is suffering from shock suffers another shock, the levels are added together (like wounds), but the Master will indicate if the fear directive changes. Generally, the one that did the most damage will persist.

Game designers note: Most players understand and accept consequences in physical combat. The enemy rolls, they are hit by a specified weapon, the damage is applied: Simple, and without argument. Social combat is another thing entirely. Specify the stakes, such as NPC wants to know where some Hero is hiding. A player may respond, I would not tell them under any circumstances! Yet, a skilled and savvy talker might get the information anyway by paying attention and asking the right questions. They might know when the Hero lies, they could note body language and deduce the truth, there are many possible ways an NPC (or Hero!) could gain information even without cooperation. The stakes are the stakes, and this is not equivalent to losing control of the character, any more than taking damage from a gunshot is. I refuse to take the damage from this blast under any circumstances! Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

The same goes for fear or compulsion. Fire is scary, we know this. Depending on the scope of the game, that might not matter. Players might be free to declare they run into the burning building to look for some dropped item. In a grittier game, a GM might want to use fear rules. A giant monster shows up, here is the fear attack.

Often, social consequences, fears and compulsions could be better handled with the carrot than the stick. Instead of deciding that the mastermind NPC has convinced a Hero to reveal vital information, invoke a sliding scale cost based on the NPC skill task that the player must pay to resist. Pay a chip for each success or reveal the information, your choice. Allow the player freedom to determine his reaction, but no matter what, if the cost is not paid the NPC learns the info (somehow). In other words, the Hero might remain completely silent, but some movement, some tic, some inconsequential movement gave away the vital info.

Some players strongly rebel against what they perceive as losing control of their character, even though functionally it is no different than taking damage from a physical attack. Some players enjoy roleplaying the negative consequences. The best solution is to know your players, and use the method that will work the best for your crew. Give the players the game they want!

Psychological Healing