Quote from: Bren;866864Curious. I wasn't aware that posts got flagged.

All I can think is there must have been a word or a phrase there that triggered something that made the post require moderator approval. Which is kind of puzzling because it's not like there was a lot of explicit language in it. I will try my best to paraphrase it, careful to avoid anything that may trigger.

The James Bond system you posted varies from mine in a significant way. Actually, the James Bond system follows what I call the "typical" persuaders model. There's no discovery phase. It's not really wrong per se. It's consistent with the majority of books about sales and probably 99% of sales managers would give it the thumbs up (with perhaps a minor tweak or two).

The system I use is heavily borrowed from Harry Browne. If Harry Browne had been a James Bond type character, to a typical observer, he'd be doing the exact same thing. Only he inexplicably somehow ends up having more success. Must be luck, right?

The key difference is, when Harry Browne appears to be engaging in witty conversation, he's actually doing the discovery step. Granted, "discovery" in this situation may have a different feel to it. It may still have a few direct questions, but it's going to consist more of reading body language and innuendo. And when he proceeds, it's not just that he knows exactly what gets the woman going. It's that she feels listened to, understood, and not judged. That frees her inhibitions so getting her going is even in the realm of possibilities.

Now it might be an average pick-up artist does seem to have a good bit of success. That may be due to other attractive qualities like good looks or confidence. It may also be due to luck--he just stumbles upon the right set of words and attitudes that break down inhibitions and he just happens to like the exact same kink or lack thereof. (Or maybe he just buys her stronger drinks.) Then again, some women are just uninhibited by nature. I'm sure a large part of being a great pick-up artist is being able to spot the uninhibited ones.

I'm not really familiar with the James Bond system, but I'm assuming the falling Ease factors means the encounter is getting more challenging as it progresses. Do I have that right? Because this is another feature of the typical approach to persuasion. It starts out going for easy wins, then pushing for more and more as the conversation moves on.

The reason this is less effective, especially in sales, is because it allows you to waste a whole lot of time with people when, for whatever reason, you just don't have the ability to close the deal. A key part to success is to realize there are werewolves out there. So if you don't have the silver dagger, cut your losses and move on. When you use the discovery step, everything gets easier after that. Not harder. In the case of a smooth seducer, doing it right ultimately means is never getting a drink thrown in your face.

Quote from: Spinachcat;866762BTW, using the Reaction table in OD&D radically changes the game.

Seriously.

If the GM begins each encounter by rolling Reaction instead of just rolling Initiative, the amount of combat decreases and the amount of RP increases rather remarkably.

Fancy that!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;866895Even if one doesn't use reaction tables, it makes little sense for everything under the sun to want a fight. Even a group of bandits that come up on an encounter table probably want the players money, they don't necessarily want to have a battle right off the bat.

Bandits almost NEVER want a fight.  Fights mean that some of your guys can get hurt or killed, property gets smashed, and the well-dressed fop who's coughing out his life with a sword through his guts is the duke's grandson, and you just lost a shot at a huge ransom.

Quote from: Ravenswing;866996Bandits almost NEVER want a fight.  Fights mean that some of your guys can get hurt or killed, property gets smashed, and the well-dressed fop who's coughing out his life with a sword through his guts is the duke's grandson, and you just lost a shot at a huge ransom.

At one point, I was working out a decision-making matrix for NPCs. Highwaymen vs Caravan was the first scenario I worked on.

The way I figured it, yes, the bandits would prefer to avoid fighting because fighting is costly for all the reasons you mention. However, asking for surrender has its own costs, namely you lose the element of surprise.

The flip side would be for the caravan. Do you fight, or do you surrender? And that would come down to a few things. Whether the highwaymen would try to kill you anyway once you hand over the valuables. Whether or not it was possible to defeat the highwaymen in combat. And, of course, whether the anticipated cost in lives would be greater or less than the cost in goods.

So the highwaymen would have to assess whether they could take out the caravan's fighters using the element of surprise, and whether or not they thought the caravan would accept surrender. Only then would they decide whether to ask for surrender, or just attack without warning. Or even just remain hidden and let the caravan go, because it may be too well guarded. Or it may seem that the wealth of the travelers just isn't worth the risk of trying to rob.

Quote from: Lunamancer;866956I'm not really familiar with the James Bond system, but I'm assuming the falling Ease factors means the encounter is getting more challenging as it progresses. Do I have that right?

You are correct.

QuoteThe reason this is less effective, especially in sales, is because it allows you to waste a whole lot of time with people when, for whatever reason, you just don't have the ability to close the deal. A key part to success is to realize there are werewolves out there. So if you don't have the silver dagger, cut your losses and move on. When you use the discovery step, everything gets easier after that. Not harder. In the case of a smooth seducer, doing it right ultimately means is never getting a drink thrown in your face.

Yes I can see the difference and understand the advantage of figuring out if a deal is possible/likely.

One of the reasons I like the five steps you outlined is that as a model it clearly lays out to the players that there is an advantage to taking several steps, including discovery or information gathering, in the process of making an attempt to persuade or make a deal.

One disadvantage to an involved or detailed discovery phase in game is it presumes the GM knows that level of detail about the wants and needs of any relevant NPCs. Often I don't. Randomly or otherwise generating answers to discovery questions can be time consuming. What James Bond and other systems do is abstract the discovery as part of the various difficulties. As you noted, an unfortunate side effect is it limits how much tactical choice a player can make vs. how much is left up to die rolls and PC skills.

Regarding getting drinks tossed in your face, when you are James Bond, that is also just part of the seduction process.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867024Or it may seem that the wealth of the travelers just isn't worth the risk of trying to rob.

Heavily armed, but shabbily dressed travelers do tend to have a low short term risk to reward ratio.

Quote from: Bren;867047Regarding getting drinks tossed in your face, when you are James Bond, that is also just part of the seduction process.

I was just thinking that a drink to the face was a pretty good sign that Bond was on track!

Quote from: Natty Bodak;867064I was just thinking that a drink to the face was a pretty good sign that Bond was on track!

Well its a game (and genre) where getting captured by the bad guy is the default strategy for winning, so the assumptions in Bond-world are a little different than in the real world.

Quote from: Bren;867047One disadvantage to an involved or detailed discovery phase in game is it presumes the GM knows that level of detail about the wants and needs of any relevant NPCs. Often I don't. Randomly or otherwise generating answers to discovery questions can be time consuming. What James Bond and other systems do is abstract the discovery as part of the various difficulties. As you noted, an unfortunate side effect is it limits how much tactical choice a player can make vs. how much is left up to die rolls and PC skills.

Right. So I would address this in three different ways.

First, I think GMs have to make an adjustment if they really want more social interaction in the game. Characters typically are given plenty of combat stats. And look at just AC alone. In most cases, it's one number. If your shield has defended the maximum number of times that round (I'm still in 1st Ed mode), you have a different AC. If you're taken by surprise, you don't get your Dex bonus. The point is, we have a lot of combat stats, and we have a logical framework for customizing them to a specific situation. We need to give this kind of consideration to NPCs we expect there to be social interactions with.

Second, we can always opt to scale back to abstracting social interactions with NPCs when the NPCs aren't important enough to detail. Players without requisite social skills will have trouble getting past hello. If the NPC is truly that unimportant, the cost of a sufficient gift to get their attention would be beyond the value the NPC provides. Think of it as a mook rule for persuasion.

Third, and this is something that I see perhaps as a worthwhile project, we could take the time to start creating some stock NPC motivation templates. If the players decide to try to persuade, intimidate, or con a random NPC that you, as GM, couldn't possibly have anticipated, a quick roll on a table, and you have ready-made motives to plug into the NPC.

This third option, especially when used for each and every unimportant NPC, can actually add a lot to the game. In an ideal world, if the party encountered a gang of bandits, I want each one to be outfitted individually, each with their own name, personality, and possibly special advantages/disadvantages rather than a platoon of identical, interchangeable bad guys. It goes a long way towards really captivating the players imaginations. I guarantee you, they'll think at least one of those bandits was just a totally awesome character, even though he's nothing but a stock, straight-out-of-the-book schmo.

QuoteRegarding getting drinks tossed in your face, when you are James Bond, that is also just part of the seduction process.

Well, that's because James Bond is such a charmer, he doesn't need to seduce women. He gets them to seduce him. The drink in the face? That's just the gal using a take-away close.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867098Right. So I would address this in three different ways.

Not sure how you are envisioning #1.

Two things I have done at times in H+I that seem kind of like #1 are the following.

{1} Assigning NPCs a degree of tractability i.e. openness or resistance to new ideas and to changing their mind. Historically, some bad rulers were easily swayed and ended up vacillating from one course of action to another depending on what courtier had most recently gotten the king's ear while others would stick firmly to a course despite evidence that a change was desirable.

Tractability and modifier to persuasion:
Mercurial      (+2)
Impulsive      (+1)
Flexible      (0)
Reserved      (-1)
Unwavering      (-2)
Intractable      (-4)
Inuman           (Impossible)

{2} Assigning Keys based on interests or specific approaches that would make an NPC more open to being influenced. So approaching a NPC using that key or offering that key would have a beneficial influence to persuading the NPC to agree to a deal or course of action. Keys included:

Approaches

• Bribe (Artwork, Books, Fine Clothing, Horses, Jewelry, Weapons)
• Entertain
• Flatter
• Intimidate
• Offer Aid
• Pray
• Question
• Seduce
• Seek Aid
• Trade

Interests

• Club (shared membership)
• Drinking
• Gambling
• Gossip
• Party
• Sports (Chess, Fencing, Hunting, Riding, Shooting, Tennis)

#2 makes sense and the analogy to Mook rules is apt.

#3 sounds the most interesting approach though I'm not sure how one would go about creating a set of templates for motivation.

QuoteThis third option, especially when used for each and every unimportant NPC, can actually add a lot to the game.

The cost/benefit of having to track individual and different motivations for each NPC will have to be looked at. I suspect it will be too high a tracking cost to do that for all NPCs. One reason that Runequest 3 moved to templates like Fair Viking Warrior or Average Merchant is because the cost of generating, recording, and tracking individual combat and skills stats for each NPC exceeded the value provided by having all those things individualized. In RQ, individualized stats (like the very old Militia book) preceded templates like the RQ3 Vikings Sourcebook.

Wow, this is getting very, very interesting. I especially appreciate the reference to "mook social rules". I'll have to come back to this thread and really dig in and reply. Thanks for the contributions, Lunamancer!

Quote from: Lunamancer;867098In an ideal world, if the party encountered a gang of bandits, I want each one to be outfitted individually, each with their own name, personality, and possibly special advantages/disadvantages rather than a platoon of identical, interchangeable bad guys. It goes a long way towards really captivating the players imaginations. I guarantee you, they'll think at least one of those bandits was just a totally awesome character, even though he's nothing but a stock, straight-out-of-the-book schmo.

Back in the day, when RuneQuest stat blocks were remarkably big by then-usual standards (to the point that Chaosium sold booklets of pregenerated ones), I realized that most of the details were lost on players. There really wasn't much point in a lot more mechanical paperwork than for monsters in AD&D, unless a figure was interacted with over an extended period.

What players noticed was what they saw, which was appearance and personality that could be quite different even if stat-wise I was re-using Rhino Rider #3 for however many figures.



Well, that's because James Bond is such a charmer, he doesn't need to seduce women. He gets them to seduce him. The drink in the face? That's just the gal using a take-away close.[/QUOTE]

The players roleplay the scene.  When it seems appropriate, one of the players rolls whichever skill they are using with a possible bonus for good roleplaying or good use of IC information.  I resolve the scene based on what they wanted to do and how well they did on the check.  Some NPCs can be convinced or made friendly and some can't.  Of the ones that can, some are easy to convince and some are very difficult.    

PCs are really susceptible to social skills in the way NPCs are.  If an NPC is siccessfully bluffed, I have them act as if they believe what is being said.  The specifics depend on the NPC.  A shifty, untrustworthy NPC will be prepared for the PC to also be shifty and untrustworthy even if he does believe them.  For PCs, I just say something like, "He seems to be telling the truth."  What the PC does with that is up to the player.

Quote from: Bren;867107Not sure how you are envisioning #1.

Generally, I go with just a brief verbal description. I do like your tractability modifier. It's almost like a "social armor class." It's perfect to apply to the introduction phase. From there, use the discovery phase to feel out the interests. With that in mind, decide on an approach for the presentation.

Quote#3 sounds the most interesting approach though I'm not sure how one would go about creating a set of templates for motivation.

The cost/benefit of having to track individual and different motivations for each NPC will have to be looked at. I suspect it will be too high a tracking cost to do that for all NPCs.

What I've done in the past is to track exact stats for individual members of large groups, say like a bandit gang. Each of them had names, one or two features noted about their physical descriptions. Some of them had a special advantage and/or disadvantage. Each of them had different weapon (or weapons), armor, and monetary treasure. If magical items were to be among the treasures of the group, they would be assigned to individuals in the group and uses in the encounter.

Now to generate this the old fashioned way, whether having to imagine it up, or roll it from a table, that would take too long to be worth while. Using a computer-aided generator, however, it's quick and easy and the end result is great.

Gary Gygax was once asked why he included so many polearms in AD&D. His response was because he imagined an army of orcs, each with a different weapon, rather than there being any uniformity. He thought it was a cool visual. I definitely agree. It's more life-like. Less sterile. That's been my inspiration.

This was all long before I developed my procedure for handling social interaction. It was before I knew much of anything about the art of persuasion. So I never got around to creating new automated tables to generate personalities as well. But I imagine it would add just as much impact. There are certainly tables in the 1st Ed DMG that could provide a jumping off point.

What I have done, however, is when starting a new campaign, at the starting locale, I would generate 20 NPCs at the locale, giving them all names and stats, even if they were just "0th level humans." They had jobs, desires, and so forth. The idea was to add another 5 NPCs in between each game session to fully flesh out the town. I found that when NPCs had clear motives, the plots began to write themselves. And my campaigns have always been 100% sandbox. Yet plots made sense because NPCs were putting events in motion which would effect the PCs.

This begins to stray onto another topic, another of my pet projects, something I call the Perpetual Campaign. It's equal parts NPC motivations, Adventure Ecology, and randomness. Anytime the PCs "complete an adventure" a new one is always popping up. And there's always a list of interesting things to choose from the party can do that never runs out.

Quote from: Phillip;867112What players noticed was what they saw, which was appearance and personality that could be quite different even if stat-wise I was re-using Rhino Rider #3 for however many figures.

I kept my stat-blocks manageable. Lejendary Adventure is usually my go-to game, though I play a lot of old-school D&D. In LA stat blocks for "monsters" really just comes down to 5 items: Health, Precision, Speed, Attacks, Defense. So when I'm varying attacks and defense, that means detailing weapons and armor individual bandits would use. Not just formed part of their physical description--players know full well that has a mechanical effect on play.

When I was using D&D, I wouldn't generate STR, INT, etc, I'd treat them with monster stats. They'd have individual damage and AC according to weapons and armor (MM in many cases gave the percentages of which gear they would have) and their own hit points according to the hit dice roll. So what? 3 stats really are all that would vary. If I wanted to include bonuses for one or two exceptional stats, that would bring it up to 5 figures, just like LA.

You combine that with a name and one or two physical features--it's not a full-fledged description. If you detailed your own character with so few details, you'd be laughed at by snobby roleplayers. But when it's a bit NPC, who isn't supposed to have that detail, it's just enough to make a lasting impression.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867130Generally, I go with just a brief verbal description. I do like your tractability modifier.

I got the idea from Black Vulmea's blog. It helps differentiate otherwise similar contacts. If known, those behavioral traits also allow for tactical choices.

Vicomte “Chancie” de Chambre
Tractability: Mercurial; +2 to persuasion; changes beliefs (and hats) like other men change their hats.
Factions: Avant-garde fashionisté; Bassompierre's party.

• Because Chancie is mercurial he is easy to persuade. On the other hand, he is quickly bored and moves on to the next new thing so he doesn’t stay interested or persuaded for very long. He makes a good contact for current gossip or fashion or immediate, short-term help.

Seigneur de Toiras
Tractability: Reserved; -1 penalty to attempts to persuade. Tends towards firm opinions or to stay the course.
Factions: King Louis XIII (Toiras is a Huguenot, but loyal to the King)

• Toiras is difficult to persuade, but he tends to hold firmly to his opinions once he holds them. Toiras would make a good long term ally or friend.