Help finding Debate rules?

Hello,

A friend of mine recently let me borrow the Vampire: Rome book.  In there, it lists Debate Styles and merits, and it references Defensive Arguments and other things that seem to be a formal system for debating.

I looked through the regular Vampire book, but I can find no reference to it there.  In which book would I be able to find this system?

You should check out the book you've just borrowed because the rules for debates are in there (if it is Requiem for Rome you have, if it's Fall of the Camarilla its not).

I do not have the book here at work so I can't give you a page number but I'm sure someone else here can. ;)

Cog.

There are no "social combat" rolls in the core system, only in Requiem for Rome.  You may think its a good idea to add one or port it over, but, trust me, it isn't.  Here's why:

Physical Combat works well mechanically structured like that because there's no good way for players to actually fight.  What's more is that many people can (and do) enjoy describing a fight, since it is a visceral, but more importantly, visual thing.

However, arguments are not visual, they are, obviously verbal, and its far more interesting and dramatic to actually make an argument than it is to describe an argument.  Plus, bonus, making an argument is something a player can actually do, and easily at that.  Even if your not a good speaker, its still going to be more interesting to try convincing an NPC with your own words rather than saying "I try and convince him of X." 

Problem two is that physical combat is easily parsed.  Each blow is a significant action that can be quantified and described and rolled out.  Even if I win the fight, it is still significant that I got stabbed in the process.  Meanwhile, if I win a debate, it probably doesn't matter that my opponent made a good point three minutes into it before I succeeded.  So, social conflict is much better handled by one (possibly extended) roll rather than a play by play.

Ok, so why, then, is there formal debate rules in Requiem for Rome?  Well, the default setting is the real world.  The one we actually live in.  We have a basic grasp of how people talk and how people argue and socialize and everything else.  We also have a general idea of how people will react to such things.  However, when trying to get immersed into the Roman setting, its going to break verisimilitude if, during a formal debate, I try and speak naturally.  In that case, it actually is better overall if I just describe my argument rather than trying to give it because I, for one, don't feel like doing extensive research into how formal Roman debates sounded. 

mplindustries:

Problem two is that physical combat is easily parsed.  Each blow is a significant action that can be quantified and described and rolled out.  Even if I win the fight, it is still significant that I got stabbed in the process.

This is very true but also system dependant. There is no way in WoD to track social or mental injury so to speak. Look at TSOY (The Shadow of Yesterday) which has a somewhat similar damage system with boxes that are checked when damage occurs. But beside checking a box (yes just one, read the game for more info :) ) you also state what kind of injury you've sustained. That means you can be drained or hurt by social and mental stress and not only physical one.

This type of representation is very interesting to me but it adds some complexity to the system off course. What are the ramifications for social and/or mental damage, how is it healed etc.

But if you're interesed you should check out TSOY which has quite a cool system IMO.

Cog.

mplindustries:

There are no "social combat" rolls in the core system, only in Requiem for Rome.  You may think its a good idea to add one or port it over, but, trust me, it isn't. 

mplindustries:

Physical Combat works well mechanically structured like that because there's no good way for players to actually fight.  What's more is that many people can (and do) enjoy describing a fight, since it is a visceral, but more importantly, visual thing.

However, arguments are not visual, they are, obviously verbal, and its far more interesting and dramatic to actually make an argument than it is to describe an argument.  Plus, bonus, making an argument is something a player can actually do, and easily at that.  Even if your not a good speaker, its still going to be more interesting to try convincing an NPC with your own words rather than saying "I try and convince him of X." 

This logic always baffles me a bit.

If this were all really true, wouldn't people favor describing combat in a cool way instead of actually having full systems for it.  You might not be able to beat up the monster, but isn't describing it in a neat fashion more interesting than just, "I attack for 9 dice," is going to be?

As well, what's the point of social traits and stats if you never get to use them?

I find the physical vs. social/mental divide really frustratingly misguided.

Social combat is fun for the same reason physical combat is fun:  It gives you a chance to play your character and engage the system at the same time.  Which is the whole point anyway.

mplindustries:

However, arguments are not visual, they are, obviously verbal, and its far more interesting and dramatic to actually make an argument than it is to describe an argument.  Plus, bonus, making an argument is something a player can actually do, and easily at that.  Even if your not a good speaker, its still going to be more interesting to try convincing an NPC with your own words rather than saying "I try and convince him of X." 

Yes but even after the argument and discussion is made by the player, the character would still need to roll to see if he convinces him or not.  If you don't do that you allow people who are convincing and social people to just min max in physicals and combat and just use his real-life skills to win arguments. Which then leaves the socially inept player to have to spread out his stats to socially affect NPCs and also get ran over by the socially adept player whenever they face each other in social situations.

Like Zeev said, the systems are their for a reason and its expected that you are going to be rolling for social as much as for physical or mental.  And honestly even combat should be described out more than "I hit him and I roll 9 dice.  Ha-Ha 5 successes!"

One of the tragic arguments I see arise from this kind of discussion is all that role/roll playing nonsense.

The trouble will allowing people to simply "make their arguments" rather than having a system, however rudimentary, to describe it, is that if you rely on that sort of thing you can safely ignore social traits. If you don't take Brawl, Weaponry, Athletics, or Firearms, you can't hit in a fight. It removes combat as a viable option from your bag of tricks. Not taking social traits (or mental traits, for that matter) should be equally dangerous.

I find that when players are allowed to just say whatever their characters say and not back that up with traits, it results in a bunch of combat monsters who are free to ignore the social portion of their character sheets. It's ironic, because this sort of "roleplaying only" way of running social encounters favors players who only take traits that make them better at killing things.

Whoah, whoah, whoah.  When did I say they make the argument with no roll?  I never said anything of the sort.  Just because someone should actually try and give their argument doesn't mean they can get away without a roll.  I said they should absolutely make one roll, possibly extended, for social conflict.  My point was that its far harder to subdivide an argument into rounds (which is needed for the debate rules) than it is to subdivide combat, simply because of the way it's described and acted out.

Thanks for the help, I've found it now.

Hadn't really meant to start a debate over social combat, lol.

mplindustries:

My point was that its far harder to subdivide an argument into rounds (which is needed for the debate rules) than it is to subdivide combat, simply because of the way it's described and acted out.

It's an artificial point though.

Real combat doesn't get subdivided nicely into turns and actions any more than most social situations do.  It's an abstraction.  And one of the reasons the rules we're talking about are called debate rules, is because in debates there is the actual expectation of the sides taking turns in reality.  It's really easy to model a debate with switching turns, even more so that physical combat.