Future Imperfect chapter 3-C
Back to Main Page
Chapter 3-C, Psychology, Social Conflict and Fear
Stakes
Before initiating any simple psychological contest, 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 to interrupt, as described in the initiative section.
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. 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, make your fear roll.
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!
