"Why won't you listen!?" - Talking with your fists.

[Cronocke]

So, something I've noticed happening in pop culture, especially with anime and often in fantasy and superhero stories here in the west, is a thing I'm going to (for lack of a better term) call the Persuasion Fight. It's when two characters are at some sort of misunderstanding or argument, and they decide to have a fistfight (or even a swordfight or superpower fight) to decide who's right and who's wrong. (And often they shout things at each other as they fight.)

I know for a fact there's a way to do this in Legends of the Wulin, but are there other games that handle this sort of thing well? And how would you houserule this into an existing system?

 

[steenan]

It's quite typical in Dogs in the Vineyard. Conflicts typically start with talking, but if both sides are determined to get the stake things escalate towards physical (grabbing, pushing etc.), then fists and finally shooting. This escalation is a basic part of the resolution system.


As a more general remark, each game that allows players to set stakes for conflicts should handle this kind of fight very well. If both sides agree to be persuaded in case they lose, they can fight to decide who's right. A game that allows social actions to work during combat (eg. Fate Core) will also give mechanical weight to whatever is being said between clashes.

 

[Umbran]

The trope is basically trial by combat, or a duel of honor.

I don't see as you need a rule. The characters fight. I already have rules for that.

 

[Celebrim]

I know for a fact there's a way to do this in Legends of the Wulin, but are there other games that handle this sort of thing well? And how would you houserule this into an existing system?

You can pull it off in any game that allows for inflicting short term or non-lethal damage. You can house rule it into any other system where you are willing to suspend system as physics in favor of system as narrative tool by simply declaring that all (or most) damage from this scene is recovered at the end of the scene.

Note that the original 1e AD&D contained a rules subsystem for dragons that more or less did exactly that if PC's wanted to risk talking with their fists to persuade a dragon, or in the parlance of the system force it to submit. The PC's could declare that they were fighting to force the dragon to submit, and the DM would track damage inflicted without actually applying it. If the damage inflicted exceeded what would have killed the dragon, it would honorably surrender to the PC's and submit to one task on their behalf. The narrative flavor applied to such a combat was that the PC's where using the flats of their swords or otherwise insuring that they didn't do lethal damage to the dragon. You could pretty much do the same sort of thing in any game system, forcing the NPC to submit after it lost a fight. Systems that allow for short term damage would work better with less narrative force being applied, especially in cases of a mutual submission fight where the PC's are expected to submit to the NPC if they lose. Actual short term damage makes it easier to compel this without resorting to, "Your PC wouldn't do that.", and with less metagame declarations.

 

[Janx]

I don't hear so good when my ears are ringing.

I get the replicating something from fiction, but in reality, fighting doesn't get people to change their mind

Plus, I'm inclined to think that once a fight starts, the people in it are tending to escalating it and are slow to return to sensible action afterwards.

Consider any self-defense gone too far news stories. I just saw one where old guy gets attacked by couple who broke into home, and it ended with him chasing them out and shooting one of them in the back.

People are all freaked out of course, but the reality is, in a combat situation, you don't think about stuff like legality or public relations. And for the combatant, the combat situation doesn't end when the enemy retreats, it ends when he perceives he is no longer in danger. That takes longer than what the law may allow for.


So assuming what I said about combat is accurate, how exactly does convincing someone you are right work, when both people are trying to kill each other?

 

[GMMichael]

Persuasion Fight. It's when two characters are at some sort of misunderstanding or argument, and they decide to have a fistfight (or even a swordfight or superpower fight) to decide who's right and who's wrong. (And often they shout things at each other as they fight.)

I know for a fact there's a way to do this in Legends of the Wulin, but are there other games that handle this sort of thing well? And how would you houserule this into an existing system?

Funny, I just got into two Persuasion Fights in Skyrim yesterday.

So, that makes me an expert on the subject.

Houserule: use normal combat rules, but once the fight's over, no one's dead.

System: mine, of course! Characters have a skill for fistfighting, "fight-unarmed," and all characters deal 1d4 physical damage on such an attack. Since characters don't technically die at max physical damage, it's easy enough for the GM to say, "you're beat-up, so you can do only this and this." An alternative would be for non-lethal fighting to deal mental damage, which leads to unconsciousness instead of being "mostly dead."

 

[Celebrim]

I get the replicating something from fiction, but in reality, fighting doesn't get people to change their mind.

Obviously, you really only want to replicate this sort of thing in genera appropriate settings.

So assuming what I said about combat is accurate, how exactly does convincing someone you are right work, when both people are trying to kill each other?

By the trope, at least one party of the combat isn't actually trying to kill the other one. Likewise by trope, if both characters actually begin the fight by trying to kill the other, it's because one or more characters believe that the other character is actually a mook, and during the course of the fight realize that the character is actually a PC and therefore at some point cease trying to kill each other and have a good laugh about the mistake.

Of course, if in a story this sort of fight does occur between a mook and a protagonist, then the outcome is usually that the protagonist will persuade either the mook or another observer to become an henchmen. The protagonist - since he believes he's facing a mook - simply displays his superior skill and his nobility by merely forcing the mook to submit. Unless of course we are dealing with the anti-villain, who displays his skill and ruthlessness by killing the mook in a single move (there by earning the respect of the evil henchmen).

 

[Cronocke]

The trope is basically trial by combat, or a duel of honor.

I don't see as you need a rule. The characters fight. I already have rules for that.

That is about proving a person guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, and typically ends with one person dead.

This is about two people, both of them potentially heroes, fighting until one or both are unwilling to continue. At that point both sides could at the very least have a chance to convince the other person they were doing something wrong, or that their own view on the matter was better.

Obviously, you really only want to replicate this sort of thing in genera appropriate settings.



By the trope, at least one party of the combat isn't actually trying to kill the other one. Likewise by trope, if both characters actually begin the fight by trying to kill the other, it's because one or more characters believe that the other character is actually a mook, and during the course of the fight realize that the character is actually a PC and therefore at some point cease trying to kill each other and have a good laugh about the mistake.

Of course, if in a story this sort of fight does occur between a mook and a protagonist, then the outcome is usually that the protagonist will persuade either the mook or another observer to become an henchmen. The protagonist - since he believes he's facing a mook - simply displays his superior skill and his nobility by merely forcing the mook to submit. Unless of course we are dealing with the anti-villain, who displays his skill and ruthlessness by killing the mook in a single move (there by earning the respect of the evil henchmen).

Pretty much what you said.

Also, bear in mind that I never said it was "winner takes all". You could theoretically lose the fight and pass out from injury, but still end up persuading the other person.

 

[Umbran]

That is about proving a person guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, and typically ends with one person dead.

Guilty/innocent, right/wrong. Same thing. In the real world, someone often died, but as a trope in fiction, frequently one combatant wins, and then refuses to kill the other.

5e has it simple - you fight. At the end, you choose whether you kill the opponent, or just want to knock them out. Simple!

In FATE, you can fight until one side or the other can Concede the fight.

Most games have a method for "don't kill the other guy" in their combat system.

 

[Cronocke]

Guilty/innocent, right/wrong. Same thing. In the real world, someone often died, but as a trope in fiction, frequently one combatant wins, and then refuses to kill the other.

5e has it simple - you fight. At the end, you choose whether you kill the opponent, or just want to knock them out. Simple!

In FATE, you can fight until one side or the other can Concede the fight.

Most games have a method for "don't kill the other guy" in their combat system.

None of which has any effect on whether or not, for example, one party convinces the other that the princess needs to be rescued.

A wins, A rescues the princess. B wins, B subdues A. There's no mechanic for A to get B to go with them and rescue the princess short of the GM going, "Okay, he gives in, he'll do what you say."

In Legends of the Wulin, no matter what the outcome of the actual fight is, A gets a chance post-combat to give B the impression that the princess does indeed need saving, and B gets a chance to give A the idea that this is all a fool's errand. And all without rolling the equivalent of a Persuasion check. The difficulty is determined by the likelihood that such a thing would happen, but it's still possible.

If such a thing can be done in FATE, that's awesome, but I really doubt 5e has anything along those lines built into it.