This is sort of a continuation of my Social Mechanics article. I played recently another oneshot using the City of Mist system, and its Convicne action has kind of opened my eyes. In the previous article, I focused more on information gathering. Right now, it's time to focus more on how to use this information.
 |
| "No, it turns out gifting him a new puppy didn't stop him, he still wants to talk to you." Bad Guys 4, by Z.W. Gu |
Request, Offer, Threat
In a social interaction, you can make statements made up of three basic components:
- Request is what you want from another NPC (leave this town, let me into the castle, give me a discount). Reasons to do make this request happen could be a part of this, but I'll talk about that later.
- Offer is a beneficial thing that you offer to the NPC (I'll give you 50 gold pieces, I'll praise you in king's presence, I'll advertise your shop).
- Threat is a detrimental thing that might happen to the NPC, caused by you in some way (I'll fight you to death, the world will end, I'll stop shopping here).
The line between an Offer and a Threat is a blurry one, since you could word a Threat as an Offer ("Let me into the castle and you won't get your teeth broken"), and maybe this could work vice versa too but right now I can't think of an example. This is fine, though, because this is where the GM comes in - the GM could tell apart Offers and Threats on the spot better than three detailed pages of rules just by using their own judgement.
There's another aspect to this that I'll need to bring up before continuing, and that is a Bluff. Any of the three components of a statement listed above, or any part of it, can be a lie. You could lie about what you want ("I didn't want just a thousand dollars, I want one million dollars. You have 24 hours to bring it."), you could lie about what you could do, whether it's positive ("And you'll never be bothered by my clan again.") or negative ("Or else I'll blow up this city.").
Okay, that's nice and all, but how does this play a role in a social interaction? Where do the stats come in, and what do you roll to convince or threaten people? Here's the trick... you roll to see what can be trusted, not to see what the person chooses.
The Choice
First, roll on any part of the statement to see if there's a lie involved. For the D&D 5e, it'd be an Insight roll opposed by a relevant Charisma skill (Intimidation for Threat, Persuasion for Offer and maybe Request, Deception for anything that's a Bluff). For The Runehack RPG, I'm considering a Hunch roll opposed by Comprehension, with a range of successes that decides how many of the components you can identify as trustworthy. The roll should somehow be modified depending on the statement's credibility. To rephrase it, "would they do this, assuming they can?" Anyone could say they will destroy the planet, and that's quite a bold claim. Can this be trusted? How could they possibly destroy the world? And even if they can, would they? Same could be asked about the Offer (Will they let my kidnapped relative free?), or even about the Request (Do they really want just one thousand dollars?). So, you roll to see if their Request, Offer, or Threat is credible. On a success, you can tell without a doubt whether they are bluffing or not. On a failure, you are left in the dark - it could be anything.
Once all the rolls for bluffing are finished, it's decision time. The character chooses their next course of action. ... That's it. What, do you expect a die to get involved in this? I mean, this could be resolved Pendragon style by giving the character some ideals or personality traits they roll for to see what they'll choose, but I don't think that's necessary. Make a choice the character in question would want to make.
How would a GM know what does an NPC want? Well, look at all the components, and ask yourself:
- Do they want to go along with whatever is requested of them?
- Would they want whatever is offered in return?
- Is it bearable for them to go along with the threat involved?
Now, a social interaction isn't about dice mind-controlling the characters. No longer is there an asymmetry in how Charisma affects the players and NPCs. Whoever is making the choice makes the choice.
An Example: Kingdom's Riches, or Prince's Life
The king receives a message. "Give me all the money in your royal treasury, and I will release your son, alive. Otherwise, I will kill him." Let's play the role of the king and examine every part of this statement, especially focusing on what could make them more or less credible.
Request
"Give me all the money in your royal treasury" might be a sensible request, provided the kingdom is doing well economically. If the kingdom is poor, the kidnapper will likely be disappointed by the money, and do something unexpected in return, like killing the prince after receiving the money. If the kidnapper has a particularly bad reputation, they could also keep increasing their demands over time.
Offer
"I will release your son" sounds promising. But, again, if the kidnapper has a bad reputation for being vile, they could decide not to release the prince even after receiving the money. On the other hand, if the kidnapper is a good reasonable person who's doing this because of something else pressuring them, they could give in and release the son regardless of receiving all the money from the royal treasury. The credibility of this offer would decrease if the prince was in the castle all along, not kidnapped at all, safe and sound (unless you want to say that high enough level threats could teleport in and out of the castle).
Threat
"I will kill your son" is a rather significant threat, even bigger if it's the heir to the throne. What could increase the credibility of this threat is learning that the kidnapper has no issues killing people without a second thought. A decrease in credibility could come with learning that the kidnapper is secretly in love with the prince.
The King's Choice
After making the relevant rolls, the choice falls at the end of the day on the king. He has all the information he can get now: the worth of prince's life, the amount of money in his treasury, whether the Prince will be released if he complies, killed if he declines the request, and whether the kidnapper demands only the money in the kingdom's treasury. All of this mixed with the king's personality and priorities leads to the choice. If the king is an NPC, the choice is made by the GM, if it was a player, the player makes a choice, unless someone else makes this choice for him (like paying the kidnapper with all the money from the royal treasury without consulting the king).
Social interaction can be quite complicated, which is why I've thought about this problem for years. Turning it into a minigame feels weird and inhumane, trying to list all the rules is a lot of work both for the designer of the game, but also for those who wish to use the rules, but it could benefit from some structure. I think this might work, splitting the statement into a Request, an Offer, and a Threat, rolling to see if any of these is a bluff or if they can be trusted, and then leaving the choice up to the character, and the player who controls them. Does the impact of this decision play a factor? Yes, but only in processing things as your character. Is saving your loved one worth it if you kill another person while doing so? How about two people? Five? Ten? A hundred? What choice your character makes in a situation says about them a lot. It would be a shame for this to be wasted because dice and randomness.
That's all just my opinion, though. If you want to, you can end up with rolling a die to decide I guess. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day!
No comments:
Post a Comment