Journey: Social
| UNDER DEVELOPMENT | |
|---|---|
|
This page is currently under development, and as such is somewhat in limbo regarding playtest viability. It is not recommended that information on this page be used or considered for playtesting until it has reached a more stable revision. |
Let's start talking about social combat in Journey.
Overview
Social combat is a lot more fluid than physical combat, in that there are a lot of directions to take.
In essence, a social combat is defined as two or more opposing parties putting forth viewpoints and making arguments against each other or to bolster their own position. The goal may be to make a third party agree with one or the other, or it may be to change the other person's position to match your own.
As mentioned, social combat is a lot more fluid in that it must, by necessity, have higher points-of-contact than physical combat, in order to accurately model what is happening in-world. Just as individuals in a combat must maneuver to be near each other, and thus have a physical location, two social combatants must have a conversational location, which - unlike physical combat - is defined by those involved in the social combat. This location shifts as the conversation goes on, much as individuals on a tactical grid maneuver.
Breakdown of Concepts
There are an assortment of social "weapons" - vague categorizations of types of statements an individual can make in a social combat situation. Unlike combat weapons, social weapons can theoretically be offensive and defensive in nature: an insult, for example, can be used both offensively and defensively.
Each of the social weapons constitutes one part of the everyone gets two concept.
The other aspect in social combat's EG2 is the approach one takes to social combat. One can be diplomatic, for example, which modifies how one uses the various weapons in one's arsenal.
Social Basics
The skeleton of social combat in Journey functions much as outlined in Orby's concept in design book #1. However, the actual application of that is where things get sticky, and where the high points-of-contact comes into play.
As the conversation progresses, an individual involved will attempt to assert a point - this can be as simple as an insult directed at their opposition, or a more complicated digression on why their position is better. The precise contents of the point are irrelevant: what matters is that the point is the "conversational location" where the next bit of the social combat will take place.
Once a point is asserted, it must be answered, or else the effects of the point apply. Each answer can, in turn, be answered by any other party involved. Answers may negate the point. Some answers may become a point in themselves, managing to sidestep the original point entirely - this is one of the key benefits of being an actual mediator, as opposed to a dabbler in social combat, as mediators have access to much more ability to avoid points made (or will, at any rate).
Answers resolve at the moment of their appearance, while a point's effect will not resolve until there are no more answers to it. In this way, all answers must direct themselves at a point, while a point can be made at any time. In this manner you can have an argument that consists of nothing more than two individuals making points at each other, completely bypassing the concept of answers entirely.
Other Considerations
Social combat and normal combat should be able to happen simultaneously - in this way, you can argue with someone you are physically fighting with to halt their aggression. This is obviously more difficult than just fighting, but it may give a mediator something to do when a fight breaks out.
...the journey of a thousand miles...
|
Journey
|
...begins beneath your feet...
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
