The last time I wrote about
Persuasion, I was agreeing with
Alexis' comments that one of the major drawbacks of most social mechanics in tabletop roleplaying games, the reason why they fail to 'work,' is their lack of meaningful consequences for failure.
The proper consequence for a failed social interaction is to lose agency in some way proportional to the scope of the party's original request, either by agreeing to undertake some (undesired) action or immediately facing consequences for their persuasion attempt (getting into trouble with the local authorities, etc.).
But before I get to talking about outcomes for Persuasion, I want to outline how the whole process works. My original approach, drawing from my theatrical training, was a beat-by-beat approach, focusing on specific tactics employed by both sides. What I realized was that this was the equivalent to asking players whether to slash at the left bicep, left thigh, or go for the low torso strike each round - far too granular to create a workable system.
My current approach is drawn from how persuasion is often conducted by professional persuaders (salespeople, lawyers, swindlers, etc.), as detailed by Lunamanser's response to
this question, and corroborated by some basic Bing searches.
There are potentially four stages to any Persuasion attempt: the pitch, discovery, the proposal, and refutation.
The Pitch
This is the process' starting point - attracting the interest of the party you are trying to persuade and outlining a very general idea of your proposal, convincing them that they should at least take the time to hear what you are saying. This is an Orator or Mountebank test against the Ascetic discipline of the targeted individual, affected by the reasonableness of what you want, the status/privilege differential, your reputation and relationship with the target, and similar factors. Success means you can move on to the next step, while failure at this point means the attempt is over (with no negative consequences). You can try again but would need some way of further enticing them to listen.
Discovery
In order to successfully persuade someone, you have to know what they want and how much they are willing to give. Discovery is the step in which these two things are, well, discovered. Borrowing from the language of psychics and mentalists alike, we have hot readings, cold readings, and warm readings. A hot reading requires researching your target, by sneaking into their home, asking questions of their business associates, family, and/or servants, etc. Cold reading, on the other hand, is learning information about the target while talking with them. Test Grokist (from
Heinlein's grok, of course) against their Ascetic discipline. Success reveals what the target wants (their hopes and fears, etc.), failure does not. A warm reading employs both hot and cold readings, gaining benefits from each.
The Proposal
Combining the Pitch and what you've learned from Discovery, the proposal is a deal between you and your target, where you suggest some way of giving them what they want while you gain what you want, testing Orator or Mountebank against their Ascetic discipline, modified by how their potential gain and risk balance out, as per the table below. If you offer something not desired by your target, they might still be swayed, but their gain will be measured as one or two categories less (depending upon the difference between what was offered and desired). Thus, while for low-risk or low-cost actions, research is not particularly required, the discovery step is crucial for high-risk or high-cost actions.
| |
|
|
|
Risk or Cost |
|
|
| Gain |
|
Extreme |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Negligible |
| Extreme |
1
step harder |
As-is |
1
step easier |
2
steps easier |
3
steps easier |
| High |
2
steps harder |
1
step harder |
As-is |
1
step easier |
2
steps easier |
| Medium |
n/a |
2
steps harder |
1
step harder |
As-is |
1
step easier |
| Low |
n/a |
n/a |
2
steps harder |
1
step harder |
As-is |
| Negligible |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
2
steps harder |
1
step harder |
Remember that costs do not have to be physical - religious and personality costs also need to factor into this equation.
If the test is successful, then the Persuasion attempt has concluded, and the agreement has been agreed-upon. As long as you do your part, they will do theirs.
Refutation
If the test is not successful, you move to the Refutation step. You get one chance to modify the offer to somehow make the target's position better (increasing their gain, reducing their risk, or both). If this is successful, then the target agrees to the new deal and will deliver on it, as long as you do the same. If this fails, then the target is unmoved by your rewards and, depending upon what was asked and what was offered, may tell the authorities, other folks in the same line of work, etc. - whatever will most thwart the your stated goal.
This process, superficially, bears very little resemblance to most social mechanics I've seen in other RPGs. However, I think this is a much more workable solution to a meaningful social mechanic. The trio I've seen in many RPGs, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, are very distinct, but consider your favorite thriller movie or TV show - when a character is threatening another, how is the skillset used different from when they are making a deal between equals? If they are lying or bluffing, how are the skills required for this different? In fact, using diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate are only clearly distinct if we think of them as intentions, rather than actual mechanical skills (emotional self-control, choosing the most effective words, physical awareness, power-awareness, etc).
Scenario #1: Bribing the [guard, clerk, maid, whatever]
The party's most diplomatic character walks up to whomever and makes the Orator or Mountebank test (Orator if being essentially honest, Mountebank if concealing their identity or employing some other form of falsehood). If they succeed, great. If not, then they show the bag full of coin and retest. Discovery is not important here, because this is a low to medium risk scenario for the target; except in remarkable circumstances, the worst outcome is losing one's job or some reputation. While absolutely undesirable, definitely something that can be overcome, especially with some financial assistance. The players have access to the above table and so decide to offer a 'high' reward, a month's wages, to the target (not spare change to the party, but not a huge loss, either). If this failed to work, they could up the ante to 6 months or 1 years wages in the Refutation step. They make the final Orator/Mountebank test, promising to hand over the funds in exchange for whatever favor they need, and proceed as usual.
Scenario #2: Intimidation
In any intimidation scenario, the party is balancing the target's fear of being killed or brutally beaten (or having sensitive information released) against the cost of whatever favor they ask. In this case, the Orator or Mountebank test in the Pitch is about convincing the target of the party's willingness to follow through on the threat (with Orator for a party genuinely willing to do so, or Mountebank for a party that is not [or does not have the blackmail material]). The potential consequences for failure at this stage are not very high - if they fail the initial test, then their target believes they are either lying or just a bunch of fools - some minor consequence might result (spending the night in jail or being fined) depending upon the intended target. If successful, though, the process moves onto the Proposal. Here, gain will be somewhere between medium and extreme, depending on how much that person values their physical safety (finding out who would be most vulnerable to intimidation would come from a successful Discovery step). As before, balance the costs with the benefits of not being mincemeat, roll the final test, and see where it stands.
Ultimately, this process can take only two rolls, for simple requests like the two presented above - one to get the target's attention and one to conclude the deal. However, it can also accommodate more involved, delicate proceedings with a better handle as to when, how, and why communication might break down. Lastly, there is only one step where the players' failure only means that they do not succeed (and even then, they have to raise the stakes and offer something more meaningful to try again, so they are absolutely set back).
One last thing is that NPCs with agendas can absolutely make use of this process against the players, too, with one exception - the players can control who to whom they listen. Being honest, though, as a DM, your job is controlling what your players find interesting, so that shouldn't be too tricky. If the players fail that final test, then they have agreed to whatever course of action the NPC suggested. If the players can force NPCs to lose their agency and do as the players wish, the NPCs can force the players to lose their agency and do what the NPCs wish.
My regular game is on standby for the next little while, but I'll see how this approach works when I next get a group together.
Posts
