Battle of Wits

I was thinking about modifying my previous D&D social encounter system to be more analoguous with combat. Here goes.

The “argumentation” happens in a grid, like combat. There are some squares that cannot be moved into, representing covered angles. This is referred to as the Field. Both parties appear in their own groups in opposing corners. Movement in the Field happens as in combat: Speeds, diagonal movement and so on. Everyone takes their turn in initiative order.

Instead of attacking with normal attacks, however, the players use their skills against the opponents’ defence values. Armor Class is not used. Diplomacy goes against Will, as it takes focus to see proper arguments amidst empty rethoric. Intimidation goes against Fortitude, as only the steel-hearted can stand against fear. Bluff goes against Reflex, as one must be careful to navigate the minefield of lies. If one wishes for the system to make more sense, they can create their own Social Defences to use. If the players want to use other skills, the DM can treat them as special actions, as described on the DM Guide. Hit points are used normally. They represent how long the person can come up with new angles and explanations. Damage taxes one’s ability to do that. The amount of damage an attack does is determined by the DM, using the Damage By Level table on the DM Guide. A nonspecific objection does not carry a lot of weight, so it would use low normal damage expression. A fact-supported argument would be usable only once, so it would use Limited Damage Expression. I would perhaps rule that high skills do low damage and low skills high damage, because it would enable the players to take risks. Would I try to do maximum damage with Dungeoneering, or just nibble the enemy to death with my diplomatic prowess?

When a player’s hit points go to zero, he or she loses credibility in the conversation, and no-one listens to him or her anymore. The player will drop from the field. Note that there is no “death” saving throw, mainly because the character won’t die as a result (probably). The only way to regain HP is by using Second Wind.

In addition to knocking every opponent down, there is an alternative way to win an argument: By attacking the opponent’s position. This position can manifest as an area on the Field, like a 3×3 grid on top of a “tower”, or as a metaphoric ball that an opponent possesses. By knocking all opponents away from the position or by knocking the bearer of the “ball” down, the players can ruin the oppositions point, winning the argument. The DM is encouraged to modify these ideas as he or she wishes.

The mechanic would fit large negotiations with multiple opponents nicely as a replacement for the normal skill challenge mechanic. I imagine this is too heavy to use constantly, though, so in cases where a single opponent stands in the way or if one side is clearly in a better negotiating position (a sword at the throat), normal dice-rolling should suffice. I just like the idea of having a metaphorical battle of wits as a game mechanic to handle exciting social situations.

Boss Negotiation

A culmination of sorts happened in my last D&D session. The players finally met their enemies… at a negotiating table.

The characters had to convince four executives from a trade union to abandon a very expensive fishing vessel to allow peace negotiations between the nation of Ilea and a local sahuagin tribe. The characters had been finding out weaknesses and counterarguments to be used in the talks, and now it was on.

I wanted the encounter to feel like a boss battle, so I put together a mechanic to handle the talks themselves. In the end, it paid out, and at least two players enjoyed it. Every opposing negotiator had one argument to present, and a couple of skills they are good at. For example, a very cold and calculative consultant presented hard facts about the loss of money for the negotiators, should they agree with the players. Due to his methodological approach, he was resistant to empty wordplay and veiled threats, meaning Intimidation failed automatically.

The encounter proceeded in normal initiative order. At their turn, the characters could attempt to find weaknesses in the opposition’s argument. This meant a relevant skill check. Due to wanting the encounter work somewhat like D&D combat (if the players did not want to provide descriptions of their actions, I would handle them), I let the players use the common social skills freely, without having to speak in-game. This was a major relief with two of our newer players, who interestingly used the most varied skills. If the skill check succeeded, I would turn the card representing the main argument 90 degrees clockwise. If it would end upside down, the players would have successfully invalidated the argument (or confused the opposition with rethoric).

The card system was, in my opinion, a stroke of genius. At all times there was one main argument under consideration. This kept the conversation focused on one point. At every turn the character in question would either throw a new point in the air,  present a counterpoint to it, or strenghten it, depending on the initiative order. If someone did not want to answer to the counterpoint, they could delay as per the initiative rules to let someone else take a shot. The system worked, and the conversation flowed naturally.

That was it. The players succesfully argued their point (with the aid of one very cool natural 20), and were off to make diplomacy. But after witnessing how the system worked, I think I could improve it still.

Insubstantial Gameplay

There is a pile of new board games fresh from Spiel 2010 in Tuonela’s Game Club. I had the privilege to play few of them, and one of the most eye-catching games for me was Spy.

The package was the first thing to pique my interest. It was a small box made from clear plastic, and had a simple paper inside with a graphic of some planets. The contrast with large cardboard boxes featuring full art was curious.

The box said ”Spy”, a game of diplomacy and deceit. Having aquired a newfound taste for diplomacy and rethoric, I knew I had to try it. The minimal components were feeding my appetite; A small pack of cards and some glass beads, along with the most mysterious thing: The game was for 5-20 people.

Battle of Wits

I hate anime for pretty much the same reason I hate MMORPG:s: They turn people into boring zombies. This hate, although crippling my ability to broaden my horizons, is one thing I carry with me, since I feel that if I stop hating anime, I’m admitting defeat. Therefore it always stings a bit to find that I like something that I later realize is heavily influenced by the style.

The Ace Attorney series is one of them. The wacky characters, the general art style and the sound effects are all heavily influenced by japanese animation style. But still I like it, for it does one thing extremely well: It makes argumentation feel like combat. As it should be.

I read an article about diplomacy in role playing games. It made valid points; Diplomacy either depends on the player, which penalizes less eloquent and assertive people, or mechanics, which is usually based on a few skills that can be re-used all the time without running out of resources.

So inspiration arose. I am going to expand upon the idea the writer started; A gameplay mechanic to handle diplomacy for Dungeons & Dragons 4^th Edition. Since the game is based around combat and kicking down doors, I claim that the social situations that would require mechanics are confrontational. The players probably want information or favours out of someone, with stubborness, disbelief and lies standing in their way. So the players are overcoming obstacles. That sounds like the Skill Challenge mechanic, which I will cannibalize a bit.