Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;866829What's the reaction table in BX. I assume the NPC's disposition?

I've only played 5E. (Though I read up on the rest.)

Actually I played PF once too but I hated it.

On OD&D it allowed you to try and recruit monsters encountered in the dungeon. You could only try to recruit monsters of the same alignment as the recruiter.
2d6 roll +/- any CHA mods +/- any DM determined mods from orations and offers. On a bad roll the creature was hostile or even attacks. On a good roll the creature accepted or even got a bonus to loyalty.

In BX the table was the same. But the effect was more profound as it was a system to determine monster attitude on contact. Rather than recruitment. And for reactions after talking to them.

Most of the games I have seen already have some way to slant the odds of success based on who you are talking to.  In Pathfinder (which I run a lot these days), the DC is based on the NPC's initial attitude.  The DC is a lot lower for a friendly NPC than for a hostile one.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867130Now 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.

Indeed it is.  I don't know how I ever GMed without a computer to handle that sort of procedural work for me.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867130This 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.

I would be very interested to hear more about this if you don't mind.  Particularly how you manage it.  I've done a lot with faction-level metagames to provide the same kind of end result, but have never considered it feasible to carry it out on the level of individuals.

How do you resolve social encounters?

Stop thinking of them as encounters...

Social interaction should not be its own minigame... These are roleplaying games after all... Play it, dont game it.

Quote from: nDervish;867230I would be very interested to hear more about this if you don't mind.  Particularly how you manage it.  I've done a lot with faction-level metagames to provide the same kind of end result, but have never considered it feasible to carry it out on the level of individuals.

It's a lot to explain all at once. And I think if I did explain it, it would be off-putting to most. It does involve a lot of record-keeping. But to the extent that a GM does spend more than an hour between sessions preparing next week's adventure, this can be a time-saver. And, of course, provides an endless source of ideas.

There are a lot of different components to it. I detail important NPCs, definitely the ambitious schemers. I play sandbox, so this is the source of the "plots." These NPCs are typically ones PCs will not encounter early in the campaign. Then I detail a bunch of low-level, ordinary NPCs that PCs are likely to encounter just by going place-to-place around town. These are a lot of work with little individual pay-off individually. Collectively, it makes the campaign seem more living and breathing.

I also have random tables, a good number of them, for producing events in response to things the PCs do. These aren't always big, noticeable, earth-shattering events. After a successful dungeon crawl when the party brings back a good amount of loot, word of this could attract NPC adventurers to the town (and yes, I generate stats for these and track them in the background). An NPC adventurer already in town might seek to join up with the party. If there are enough adventurers in town, especially if the PCs aren't accepting new members, they may form a rival adventuring party.

Another example, always seems to come back to bandits. If the bandits try to rob a caravan guarded by the PCs who are far more powerful than the bandits anticipate might lead to the death and capture of bandits, the remaining gang is smaller and weaker. Maybe they'll demand new leadership. Suddenly the pattern of how bandits strike and the tactics they use changes. Or if the entire band is somehow killed or captured, this leaves a vacuum for another gang to come in to fill. Maybe two gangs attempt to jump on the opportunity. This would mean both a spike in robberies as well as occasional violent outbreaks of gang rivalry.

To link it back to NPC adventurers, after spending time in town without getting in on adventure, there is a chance that NPC adventurer will join a gang (also a chance of them leaving town or giving up adventuring and finding work as soldiers or guards, etc).

All of this requires record-keeping, and the majority of it will be in the background, players completely unaware of it, so it initially seems a lot of work with little payoff. But the natural progression sets up backstories for future events that become major story arcs.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;867231How do you resolve social encounters?

Stop thinking of them as encounters...

Social interaction should not be its own minigame... These are roleplaying games after all... Play it, dont game it.

Unfortunately some people really do want a rule and detail for everything.

I like 5e D&D's approach to this with the Traits-Ideals-Flaws-Bonds system. In 4 rolls you have a good basis for the NPCs interaction factors.

example: arrogant, believes strongly in balance, is infatuated with another NPC, and knows something forbidden.

Combine that with the rest of the NPC gen and the interaction rules starting on page 244 and on the fly you can glean a fair variety of people and as little or as much rolling to deal with them as you want.

Quote from: nDervish;867230Indeed it is.  I don't know how I ever GMed without a computer to handle that sort of procedural work for me.



I would be very interested to hear more about this if you don't mind.  Particularly how you manage it.  I've done a lot with faction-level metagames to provide the same kind of end result, but have never considered it feasible to carry it out on the level of individuals.

Tony Bath's "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign," which is part of this volume.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Honest, folks, a LOT of this stuff was written up in a very useable form by Tony back in the early 70s.

Quote from: Omega;867160On OD&D it allowed you to try and recruit monsters encountered in the dungeon. You could only try to recruit monsters of the same alignment as the recruiter.
2d6 roll +/- any CHA mods +/- any DM determined mods from orations and offers. On a bad roll the creature was hostile or even attacks. On a good roll the creature accepted or even got a bonus to loyalty.

In BX the table was the same. But the effect was more profound as it was a system to determine monster attitude on contact. Rather than recruitment. And for reactions after talking to them.

It was used that way by Gary and Dave before publication, too, even though it wasn't explicitly spelled out.

Quote from: Lunamancer;866395The procedure I put in place, since it does follow a real conversation, can be 100% role-played out, with it calling for skill checks in a few key points. I hesitate to liken social encounters to combat encounters, because the whole point of social skills is to gain consent and cooperation, which is the complete opposite of conflict and domination. But, much like combat, it doesn't cram everything into one die roll. There is interaction and the opportunity for choice between dice rolls.

Ahem, the goal of a con isn't consent, it's making someone believe erroneous information.
Similarly, the goal of a lot, and probably of most violence, is to gain (grudging) consent and cooperation;).
Just saying:). I must add that I like your system a whole lot, but I find trying to point out the similarities to fighting to be more useful.

Quote from: Lunamancer;866466Well, thanks for the interest. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Every time I have to explain it, I get a little bit better at explaining it.

So in its basic form, I break persuasion down into 5 phases. Introduction, discovery, presentation, elaboration, and the close. The introduction is about getting the other person's attention and willingness to listen. Discovery is about finding out what they want, their motivations. Presentation is framing your proposal in a way likely to appeal to your prospect. Elaboration is when the prospect still has doubts--objections or questions--and you clarify to ease their concerns. The close is like the handshake that seals the deal.

I think the way most people approach it (especially bad salesmen in real life) is they skip discovery and treat elaboration as a battle of wits. So it's like, "Hi, this is what I think you should do," followed by several rounds of verbal jujitsu until someone finally admits they're wrong. Being that this is an internet message forum, I think we all know how unrealistic that is.

Actually, I'd say that this is exactly realistic. The unrealistic part would be hoping for high-percentage success.
Then again, I think this is also the tactic used when the persuader is lacking time. Well, if you're good at "cold reading", you could make it work a lot of the time - but then you're just shifting the discovery phase before the intro, and relying on non-verbal clues.

Still, it works often enough for many people. I'd point out a probably less popular examples: people that do cons on the phone. Some of them just call people, and manage to make them believe a wild story about a relative or friend needing cash.
I've been targeted by those people, myself (and it was funny how fast they hung the phone after I asked whether they mind me recording the conversation). They are good, and usually rely on information they obtained beforehand.

Is such a scenario possible under your system, though? Often enough to make it worthwhile?

QuoteA hard close can go simply as a skill check. But there might also be actions the persuader can take outside the scope of social skills that can win the day. Think of playing poker. You think the other guy is bluffing. He goes all in. You still think he's bluffing, but the fact is you can't afford to be wrong about it, so you fold anyway. A hard close can be like that.

Well, how would you make a "poker close" if you need someone to become your ally in order for you to avoid being murdered by your enemies? Presume whatever argument you like worked, but not perfectly, and give me an example, please.

Quote from: Omnifray;866530My preferred way of dealing with social encounters is that you make dice-rolls or stat-comparisons before the encounter begins, and those:-

* do not point to specific outcomes of the dialogue
* instead merely bias the GM's roleplay of NPCs, and choice of hints to give players

This one tends to fail miserably if the player is better at persuasion than the GM, IME;).

Quote from: Bren;866578I've usually seen this from player who are some combination of immature, unsophisticated, or very unworldly. Since the players don't at all understand how persuasion works in the real world, a magical black box approach in the game world makes as much sense to them as any other model of persuasion.

I was going to say "MMO fans", because that's my experience with said players.

Quote from: Lunamancer;866956All 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.

Seducing or persuading, how would players recognise it's time to cut the losses under your system?

And since you're answering about other systems, how would your system map to Exalted 3e's system? In it, you need to know something the NPC believes or values in order to have a chance to make him or her act according to what you want.
Like, you want a satrap to reduce some taxes, you need to know if he or she actually believes stuff like "people need to be kept happy in order to minimise unrest", or "I shouldn't be too hard on them". Then you use that to argue it supports your case.
Thing is, you can still fail, if he also has beliefs that contradict this. Like "my superiors wouldn't be happy with reduced tax revenue" can be good enough for him to spend Willpower and resist your influence.
You want to block this in advance, find out and sooth his fears of his superiors, or make him fear unrest more than his superiors.
So, how does it map to your system?

Quote from: Lunamancer;867098Right. 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.

Here's where I totally agree... I often say that my NPCs are just one line of stats. Sometimes, I add that the reason I like it this way is "so I'd have more time for their personality".

QuoteSecond, 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.

Isn't that the inverse of a mook rule? Players without requisite social skills shouldn't bother with unimportant persuasion. So, they don't deal with mooks.

QuoteThird, 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.

Well, that's a book of stat blocks I'd actually buy.
Like, my current Exalted campaign has only about 10 well-developed NPCs, and 8 of them have got one line of combat stats... Which is awfully hard in Exalted, BTW.
But all of them have names and a full set of Personality Keys, as above, and Relationship Keys (or Intimacies and Backgrounds, in the system).

I guess I really liked the "Name your NPCs" advice in Apocalypse World.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867130Gary 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 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.

This makes me remember a local LotR comic. The amount of polearms for the orcs was really staggering...

And do you mean the state where you're just playing the NPCs, and new stuff to do constantly pops up? It's sweat when things reach that moment:p!

Quote from: Lunamancer;867131You 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.

What's a snobby roleplayer? Because the people that are usually referred to in this way on this forum would know I'm playing Over The Edge, or Sorcerer, and actually envy me;).

Quote from: Lunamancer;867235It's a lot to explain all at once. And I think if I did explain it, it would be off-putting to most. It does involve a lot of record-keeping. But to the extent that a GM does spend more than an hour between sessions preparing next week's adventure, this can be a time-saver. And, of course, provides an endless source of ideas.

There are a lot of different components to it. I detail important NPCs, definitely the ambitious schemers. I play sandbox, so this is the source of the "plots." These NPCs are typically ones PCs will not encounter early in the campaign. Then I detail a bunch of low-level, ordinary NPCs that PCs are likely to encounter just by going place-to-place around town. These are a lot of work with little individual pay-off individually. Collectively, it makes the campaign seem more living and breathing.

I also have random tables, a good number of them, for producing events in response to things the PCs do. These aren't always big, noticeable, earth-shattering events. After a successful dungeon crawl when the party brings back a good amount of loot, word of this could attract NPC adventurers to the town (and yes, I generate stats for these and track them in the background). An NPC adventurer already in town might seek to join up with the party. If there are enough adventurers in town, especially if the PCs aren't accepting new members, they may form a rival adventuring party.

Another example, always seems to come back to bandits. If the bandits try to rob a caravan guarded by the PCs who are far more powerful than the bandits anticipate might lead to the death and capture of bandits, the remaining gang is smaller and weaker. Maybe they'll demand new leadership. Suddenly the pattern of how bandits strike and the tactics they use changes. Or if the entire band is somehow killed or captured, this leaves a vacuum for another gang to come in to fill. Maybe two gangs attempt to jump on the opportunity. This would mean both a spike in robberies as well as occasional violent outbreaks of gang rivalry.

To link it back to NPC adventurers, after spending time in town without getting in on adventure, there is a chance that NPC adventurer will join a gang (also a chance of them leaving town or giving up adventuring and finding work as soldiers or guards, etc).

All of this requires record-keeping, and the majority of it will be in the background, players completely unaware of it, so it initially seems a lot of work with little payoff. But the natural progression sets up backstories for future events that become major story arcs.

Actually, sounds a pretty normal amount of bookkeeping. Although I tend to keep it in my head.
If I forget something, it obviously wasn't important;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;867285Tony Bath's "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign," which is part of this volume.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Honest, folks, a LOT of this stuff was written up in a very useable form by Tony back in the early 70s.

Since I've been reading this thing for a couple days now, I can only confirm what Gronan said:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;867610Ahem, the goal of a con isn't consent, it's making someone believe erroneous information.
Similarly, the goal of a lot, and probably of most violence, is to gain (grudging) consent and cooperation;).
Just saying:). I must add that I like your system a whole lot, but I find trying to point out the similarities to fighting to be more useful.

I still stand by my original claim. I channel Taleb when I say beliefs are meaningless. It's choice that matters. The goal of the con isn't to change what someone believes, it's merely a means to an end. The goal of the con is to get them, of their own free will, to act on erroneous beliefs.

Here's the ultimate litmus test: How does it work on a PC? The player will ultimately decide whether or not to believe the lie. If the player's character has the ability to detect lies, then that would certainly diminish the chance of a con working, and it would take a highly skilled con man to sneak something by.

QuoteActually, I'd say that this is exactly realistic. The unrealistic part would be hoping for high-percentage success.

Right. And I'll touch on this again when I address your question about exalted. It's always possible that someone just stumbles upon the right motivation by dumb luck.

QuoteThen again, I think this is also the tactic used when the persuader is lacking time. Well, if you're good at "cold reading", you could make it work a lot of the time - but then you're just shifting the discovery phase before the intro, and relying on non-verbal clues.

Yes, the discovery phase doesn't even have to take place in the other person's presence. However, you always increase the odds if you summarize what you know in the form of a question before going into your pitch. "If I can help you get x and y while avoiding z, would that be worth doing abc?" Because it shows the person you're trying to persuade that you understand them. If they say yes, now they're admitting to their needs. No matter how much evidence and proof you have, whatever you know about the prospect's needs is just your opinion. When the prospect says it, however, it's fact.

QuoteIs such a scenario possible under your system, though? Often enough to make it worthwhile?

The vast majority of sales organizations don't use a discovery phase, yet they manage to stay in business. They do a weak form of pre-qualifying. And they (hopefully) have the right marketing campaign to generate lists of people predisposed to being more open to the company's offer. Still, it's groping in the dark. The person on that other end of the phone is either interested in your idea or they're not. And if they are, they might still not do business with you because they don't trust you.

QuoteWell, how would you make a "poker close" if you need someone to become your ally in order for you to avoid being murdered by your enemies? Presume whatever argument you like worked, but not perfectly, and give me an example, please.

Just to be clear, my "poker close" example was for a character who lacked the skill to hard-close. So the player has to take on larger risk to even have a chance.

The underlying "mechanics" of it are as follows. The player in this situation is looking at three possible outcomes, ranked from favorite to least favorite.

1) Stay alive, deliver a "secret" of importance to the right people.
2) Before dying, tell someone the secret to pass on to the right people
3) Killed by enemies. Take the secret to your grave.

This other person you're trying to persuade to help protect you from the wrath of your enemies also has an interest in getting your secret to the right people. He's looking at the following three outcomes, also ranked from favorite to least favorite:

1) Deliver secret without getting involved in someone else's battle.
2) Deliver secret, even if it means getting involved in someone else's battle.
3) Avoid getting involved, even if it means the secret is lost.

So if the player goes for the "poker close" she raises the stakes and swears to take the secret to hers grave unless she gets help fighting off her enemies. The player is taking a risk because she COULD opt for her #2 for certain. Instead she takes that off the table for a shot at #1, even though it means risking #3.

As to the prospect, #1 has been taken off the table. Maybe. Maybe the prospect doesn't believe the player. If he does believe the player, that means his best choice is option 2. If he does not believe the player, he could stand his ground and shoot for #1. But if it turns out she was telling the truth all along, he's risking #3.

The "poker close" works if and only if the prospect is unwilling to risk #3 for a shot at #1. It's solely determined by choice, not dice. If the prospect is an NPC, the GM of course may choose to delegate his choice do a dice roll anyway.

QuoteSeducing or persuading, how would players recognise it's time to cut the losses under your system?

Cutting losses is about ruling out early someone who cannot be closed for one reason or another. This will be found during the discovery phase in one of two ways. First, the player may discover that the prospect's motives are just not compatible with what you want and what you have to offer. Second, the character may discover through some sort of lie detection skills that he's not getting honest answers during discovery. This would indicate the intro failed to gain openness and willingness to listen.

QuoteAnd since you're answering about other systems, how would your system map to Exalted 3e's system? In it, you need to know something the NPC believes or values in order to have a chance to make him or her act according to what you want.

I have to make clear, I've been calling it a "procedure" not a "system" because I have no intention of re-writing rules. I use a combination of the existing mechanics (typically skill checks) of whatever game I'm playing and good old fashioned roleplaying. It's more like a GMing trick. An outline for handling a common situation no matter what RPG you're playing.

From what you describe, Exalted seems pretty good match for what I do. Just one nitpick (and I think we are actually on the same page about this, I just want to be clear), it's not 100% necessary to know what the NPC values or believes. You could get it right just out of dumb luck. And in my opinion, this is how much of the sales profession works in real life. Contact enough people, and sooner or later you're bound to get lucky. And you can increase your odds of getting lucky by accurate stereotyping.

QuoteLike, you want a satrap to reduce some taxes, you need to know if he or she actually believes stuff like "people need to be kept happy in order to minimise unrest", or "I shouldn't be too hard on them". Then you use that to argue it supports your case.
Thing is, you can still fail, if he also has beliefs that contradict this. Like "my superiors wouldn't be happy with reduced tax revenue" can be good enough for him to spend Willpower and resist your influence.
You want to block this in advance, find out and sooth his fears of his superiors, or make him fear unrest more than his superiors.
So, how does it map to your system?

Exactly how you describe. The idea behind my procedure is that though it has a structure and periodic skill checks to give "crunch" to people who want that, it is simultaneously 100% roleplayed out. It's limited only by whatever plausible argument you can think of.

So suppose we had a great intro, the satrap is open and willing to listen to what you have to say. You do a thorough discovery, so you know his motives, beliefs, and fears fully, then (ideally) you go to the summary question, "If I could show you a way to keep your superiors happy while minimizing unrest, would you be open to modifying your tax policy?"

Right away, he might say, "Well reducing taxes would make my superiors unhappy, so I don't know if you can help." This tells you that what you really need to focus on soothing his fear of his superiors.

If, on the other hand, he just answers with a plain "Yes," you can go into the terrible cost unrest has on the coffers and how that in turn will make his superiors unhappy. Either way, you've fished out what the dominant motive is and focus on addressing it.

QuoteIsn't that the inverse of a mook rule? Players without requisite social skills shouldn't bother with unimportant persuasion. So, they don't deal with mooks.

I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of mook rules, so I may be using the term wrong. The way I'd envision this working is, if you have skill, and these are just regular Joes, just make a skill roll and be done with it. There's not much to be gained or lost. So just fast forward the tape.

QuoteI guess I really liked the "Name your NPCs" advice in Apocalypse World.

Absolutely. Those little details make a huge difference. I mean the cost (in time) to benefit (of it mattering in the game) for an individual minor NPC may make it not worth it. But encountering a large number of them that are individuals rather than carbon copies kicks up the immersion to say the least. It carries a larger macro benefit in addition to the individual smaller benefits.

QuoteAnd do you mean the state where you're just playing the NPCs, and new stuff to do constantly pops up? It's sweat when things reach that moment:p!

First time I did something like that, it really didn't even take that many NPCs. It was the local ruler, the guy seeking his position of power, his lieutenant, the ruler's oldest son, the ruler's long-lost daughter, an orc chieftain, and a half-orc hermit. The guy seeking power, naturally, was really the one setting a lot of the stuff to do in motion. And he wasn't even someone the PCs would encounter any time soon.

QuoteWhat's a snobby roleplayer?

Maybe it was just the gamer circles I was in, but having 3-pages of non-game stat character notes (personality, history, motives, etc) seemed to be all the rage back in the 90's.

Quote from: Lunamancer;867662I still stand by my original claim. I channel Taleb when I say beliefs are meaningless. It's choice that matters. The goal of the con isn't to change what someone believes, it's merely a means to an end. The goal of the con is to get them, of their own free will, to act on erroneous beliefs.

Yes, but the mechanism is different. Say, you know someone is going to spend money and is looking for the best investment. By slipping him or her misinformation about the other options, shortly before making your own offer, you indirectly raise the value of your own offer.
You're not using persuasion to get him or her to act in his or her interests, not trying to show how a particular action is in his or her interests, nor even what the action should be. You're merely shaping his or her perceptions, and letting him or her come to the sub-optimal conclusion by his or her own wits.

QuoteHere's the ultimate litmus test: How does it work on a PC? The player will ultimately decide whether or not to believe the lie. If the player's character has the ability to detect lies, then that would certainly diminish the chance of a con working, and it would take a highly skilled con man to sneak something by.

Oh yes, definitely. Characters in my games have been known to get all the available lie detection skills...

QuoteRight. And I'll touch on this again when I address your question about exalted. It's always possible that someone just stumbles upon the right motivation by dumb luck.

Are educated guesses ("the person of a given age has kids and is worried about their well-being above all") character or player skill?

QuoteYes, the discovery phase doesn't even have to take place in the other person's presence. However, you always increase the odds if you summarize what you know in the form of a question before going into your pitch. "If I can help you get x and y while avoiding z, would that be worth doing abc?" Because it shows the person you're trying to persuade that you understand them. If they say yes, now they're admitting to their needs. No matter how much evidence and proof you have, whatever you know about the prospect's needs is just your opinion. When the prospect says it, however, it's fact.

Actually, sometimes even being wrong is appreciated, IME:). As you no doubt know, but I felt it needs to be noted.

QuoteThe vast majority of sales organizations don't use a discovery phase, yet they manage to stay in business. They do a weak form of pre-qualifying. And they (hopefully) have the right marketing campaign to generate lists of people predisposed to being more open to the company's offer. Still, it's groping in the dark. The person on that other end of the phone is either interested in your idea or they're not. And if they are, they might still not do business with you because they don't trust you.

Reminds me of the last time I got a phone call from my bank with an exclusive offer:). At least the guy on the other end got cut off fast, so we didn't waste time.
But I get what you mean.

QuoteJust to be clear, my "poker close" example was for a character who lacked the skill to hard-close. So the player has to take on larger risk to even have a chance.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of example I was asking about!

QuoteThe underlying "mechanics" of it are as follows. The player in this situation is looking at three possible outcomes, ranked from favorite to least favorite.

1) Stay alive, deliver a "secret" of importance to the right people.
2) Before dying, tell someone the secret to pass on to the right people
3) Killed by enemies. Take the secret to your grave.

This other person you're trying to persuade to help protect you from the wrath of your enemies also has an interest in getting your secret to the right people. He's looking at the following three outcomes, also ranked from favorite to least favorite:

1) Deliver secret without getting involved in someone else's battle.
2) Deliver secret, even if it means getting involved in someone else's battle.
3) Avoid getting involved, even if it means the secret is lost.

So if the player goes for the "poker close" she raises the stakes and swears to take the secret to hers grave unless she gets help fighting off her enemies. The player is taking a risk because she COULD opt for her #2 for certain. Instead she takes that off the table for a shot at #1, even though it means risking #3.

As to the prospect, #1 has been taken off the table. Maybe. Maybe the prospect doesn't believe the player. If he does believe the player, that means his best choice is option 2. If he does not believe the player, he could stand his ground and shoot for #1. But if it turns out she was telling the truth all along, he's risking #3.

The "poker close" works if and only if the prospect is unwilling to risk #3 for a shot at #1. It's solely determined by choice, not dice. If the prospect is an NPC, the GM of course may choose to delegate his choice do a dice roll anyway.

Got it. Thanks, that was the example I was asking for!

Now, in the exact same situation, how would higher skill allow you to avoid the poker close?

QuoteCutting losses is about ruling out early someone who cannot be closed for one reason or another. This will be found during the discovery phase in one of two ways. First, the player may discover that the prospect's motives are just not compatible with what you want and what you have to offer. Second, the character may discover through some sort of lie detection skills that he's not getting honest answers during discovery. This would indicate the intro failed to gain openness and willingness to listen.

Sounds reasonable.

QuoteI have to make clear, I've been calling it a "procedure" not a "system" because I have no intention of re-writing rules. I use a combination of the existing mechanics (typically skill checks) of whatever game I'm playing and good old fashioned roleplaying. It's more like a GMing trick. An outline for handling a common situation no matter what RPG you're playing.

Well, many sub-systems are just skill checks with procedure, so the distinction is kinda murky.

QuoteFrom what you describe, Exalted seems pretty good match for what I do. Just one nitpick (and I think we are actually on the same page about this, I just want to be clear), it's not 100% necessary to know what the NPC values or believes. You could get it right just out of dumb luck. And in my opinion, this is how much of the sales profession works in real life. Contact enough people, and sooner or later you're bound to get lucky. And you can increase your odds of getting lucky by accurate stereotyping.

Yeah, that's explicitly allowed in Exalted 3e, too.
But unless you're good, high Socialize helps. Of course, you have to somehow evoke the subject you want to read the prospective NPC's reaction on, or you just can't roll Socialize...

QuoteExactly how you describe.

To be honest, it's not my example, it's an example from the book...I think. Or it's an example I read on Internet, but the developers approved, doesn't matter!

QuoteThe idea behind my procedure is that though it has a structure and periodic skill checks to give "crunch" to people who want that, it is simultaneously 100% roleplayed out. It's limited only by whatever plausible argument you can think of.

Yeah, that's how a lot of modern systems work, too.

QuoteSo suppose we had a great intro, the satrap is open and willing to listen to what you have to say. You do a thorough discovery, so you know his motives, beliefs, and fears fully, then (ideally) you go to the summary question, "If I could show you a way to keep your superiors happy while minimizing unrest, would you be open to modifying your tax policy?"

Right away, he might say, "Well reducing taxes would make my superiors unhappy, so I don't know if you can help." This tells you that what you really need to focus on soothing his fear of his superiors.

If, on the other hand, he just answers with a plain "Yes," you can go into the terrible cost unrest has on the coffers and how that in turn will make his superiors unhappy. Either way, you've fished out what the dominant motive is and focus on addressing it.

Right. That's how I'd expect it to go, myself.
Luckily, it's also how it already goes in some systems (Exalted and Pendragon, or RQ6 if Passions rules are used).

QuoteI'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of mook rules, so I may be using the term wrong. The way I'd envision this working is, if you have skill, and these are just regular Joes, just make a skill roll and be done with it. There's not much to be gained or lost. So just fast forward the tape.

Yeah, mook fights usually mean you can still be hurt, but you can take them so easily you're actually taking them out in numbers.
The biggest difference is that in your procedural system, players with skills should deal with the mooks, while usually mooks are the domain of the characters with lower skill. The analoguous example would be the GM deciding not much can be gained, so it can just be roleplayed out and even skipping some details, I think.
Either way, that's besides the point.

QuoteAbsolutely. Those little details make a huge difference. I mean the cost (in time) to benefit (of it mattering in the game) for an individual minor NPC may make it not worth it. But encountering a large number of them that are individuals rather than carbon copies kicks up the immersion to say the least. It carries a larger macro benefit in addition to the individual smaller benefits.

Obviously I agree.

QuoteFirst time I did something like that, it really didn't even take that many NPCs. It was the local ruler, the guy seeking his position of power, his lieutenant, the ruler's oldest son, the ruler's long-lost daughter, an orc chieftain, and a half-orc hermit. The guy seeking power, naturally, was really the one setting a lot of the stuff to do in motion. And he wasn't even someone the PCs would encounter any time soon.

Sounds about right for what I do as well.

QuoteMaybe it was just the gamer circles I was in, but having 3-pages of non-game stat character notes (personality, history, motives, etc) seemed to be all the rage back in the 90's.

It still is, in some circles. Less so, or quite the opposite, in others.
But wouldn't those same people commend you for having lots of non-game stat character notes and limited stats? The ones I know, would be most likely to do exactly that. (Now, players of some well-known system, would be most likely to require more crunch. But they usually aren't considered snobby, from what I know - I admit I don't play it, as a general rule;)).

Quote from: AsenRG;867704Yes, but the mechanism is different. Say, you know someone is going to spend money and is looking for the best investment. By slipping him or her misinformation about the other options, shortly before making your own offer, you indirectly raise the value of your own offer.
You're not using persuasion to get him or her to act in his or her interests, not trying to show how a particular action is in his or her interests, nor even what the action should be. You're merely shaping his or her perceptions, and letting him or her come to the sub-optimal conclusion by his or her own wits.

Perception is the thing. It's like I said about the summary question. Regardless of whether what your pitching is true or false in an absolute sense, in the context of persuasion, it's nothing more or nothing less than the persuader's opinion. When the prospect says it, it becomes fact. If the prospect accepts the false information as fact, evaluation of what's in his best interests is filtered through that lens.

Cons are most effectively used the same way as a regular persuasion attempt. The difference is, if when you frame your proposal (or during elaboration) you have to misrepresent the facts, I call for a "con" roll to tell the lie convincingly.

Part of what's happening in discovery is we're zeroing in on what's of interest to the prospect. If you start talking about investment options before finding out what's important to the prospect, even if it's to spread negative false information about the ones you're NOT selling, it's going to be less effective. You begin to lose the prospects attention whenever you talk about something they're not interested in.

Again, it's entirely possible for your misinformation to just happen upon your prospect's fears. In the financial industry, probably mostly any industry, there are some well-known "pain points" that apply to a large number of people. But it's not universal.

I've actually had people come up to me saying they want to get into something high-risk. Nobody wants high-risk. What they really mean to say is they're willing to tolerate high risk if they can get a higher long-run yield. But because they equate that to wanting high risk, if a con man were to go up to one of these people and start telling them about all of these (false) risks involved in what they're currently invested in, the prospect might be thinking, "Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted."

A more effective way to run the same con is to first fish out in the discovery phase that the person wants high risk. A follow-up question or two will actually reveal the person is interested in very high yield. So the misinformation you want to give regarding his current investment is NOT going on and on about the risks. That might work for most people, but with this person, misinformation about how the yield on his current investment is capped would be more effective.

The point is, whether it's a con, intimidation, seduction or anything else, it's always going to work best when using this procedure. Without discovery, you're only ever guessing at what will work. (How many times have we seen a hero in a movie threatened or tortured without ever giving up anything, then the bad guy puts a gun to a loved one's head, and that changes everything?)

QuoteOh yes, definitely. Characters in my games have been known to get all the available lie detection skills...

I consider the elemental social skills to be detecting lies, lying convincingly, reading between the lines, and effective communication. Whatever the actual skill is in the game, it's going to have one or more of those four applications.

QuoteAre educated guesses ("the person of a given age has kids and is worried about their well-being above all") character or player skill?

The player is ultimately going to pitch an idea and it will either be a good match for the NPC's hidden motive or not. If there is an applicable skill and means for obtaining the information necessary to make a guess educated then I suppose it could from the character as well.

QuoteActually, sometimes even being wrong is appreciated, IME:). As you no doubt know, but I felt it needs to be noted.

Yes, the most important thing to communicate is that you realize the prospect is only going to do something that is in his best interest, and you wouldn't expect him to do otherwise. Getting a "no" and doing more discovery adds to your credibility that you care about what this person wants.

I work with some people whose sales script is a typical one, not much discovery aside from a weak pre-qualification, and so instead of having a summary question going into the pitch, they have a line "Maybe this could help you out." I teach them to sound as uncertain as possible when saying that line. At least that's what I teach when I'm not being a wise-ass saying, "Take everything you know about sales and do just the opposite."

QuoteReminds me of the last time I got a phone call from my bank with an exclusive offer:). At least the guy on the other end got cut off fast, so we didn't waste time.
But I get what you mean.

Yes, the biggest pitfall in persuasion is not getting a "no" but getting a non-committal answer. You call back again and again and again wasting a lot of time when there never was a chance of closing the deal. A good intro heads this off with an "up-front contract." An example of that, "If at any point you feel that this is not something that's of interest to you, do you feel comfortable telling me that?"

QuoteNow, in the exact same situation, how would higher skill allow you to avoid the poker close?

Hard closes ought to be rare. And they rarely work. In most cases, going into the close, success or failure has already been determined. This basically gives a character who has skill a last-ditch effort. A character with skill actually has two options here. One of them could be to fall back and revisit discovery to come up with a better proposal. The other option would be go for the hard close.

Going for the hard close obviously saves time. But it's also helpful because in actual play, it might be the PC already went around in circles a few times and is out of "ammunition." It's either go for the hard close or nothing. It should be an extremely difficult roll, about one-tenth normal probability for success, so it should only be used when there's nothing left to lose.

QuoteIt still is, in some circles. Less so, or quite the opposite, in others.
But wouldn't those same people commend you for having lots of non-game stat character notes and limited stats?

Maybe, maybe not. One unfortunate mindset I see a lot of gamers follow is, recognizing that so much of what we do is entirely subjective, they hang all their judgments on facts that are objective, no matter how insignificant. And then try to argue their significance.

So, who's to say who has a better quality character background or personality or what have you? But we can point to a page count or word count.

I've read plenty of game reviews (not all of them are like this but there are a lot of them) that focus on things like page count, font size, and margins but don't seem to say anything that would help me determine whether or not the game is fun. Or they might harp on the "production value" and "quality of artwork" without ever mentioning whether or not it fits the game or enhances the mood. Some of the cheesy ink sketches from the 1st Ed DMG do more for the product than a full color glossy of some "really serious RPG scene" would have. Of course, that's just a matter of opinion.

Quote from: AsenRG;867610This one tends to fail miserably if the player is better at persuasion than the GM, IME;)

Fail in what sense?

In the sense simply that it produces the same results as pure conversational roleplay?

Or in the sense that both that method and pure conversational roleplay fail to give effect to players' social stats if the player is more persuasive than the GM?

I'm not convinced that any of my players have been significantly more persuasive than me, but whether they have or haven't, I've never noticed significant problems with this approach. However, if (which I doubt) you're right, then perhaps that helps to explain why the Pundit thinks that the GM has to be the Alpha Male of the Group, shoes I easily fill of course * chest-beating + roar *

Quote from: Lunamancer;867745Perception is the thing. It's like I said about the summary question. Regardless of whether what your pitching is true or false in an absolute sense, in the context of persuasion, it's nothing more or nothing less than the persuader's opinion. When the prospect says it, it becomes fact. If the prospect accepts the false information as fact, evaluation of what's in his best interests is filtered through that lens.

Cons are most effectively used the same way as a regular persuasion attempt. The difference is, if when you frame your proposal (or during elaboration) you have to misrepresent the facts, I call for a "con" roll to tell the lie convincingly.

Part of what's happening in discovery is we're zeroing in on what's of interest to the prospect. If you start talking about investment options before finding out what's important to the prospect, even if it's to spread negative false information about the ones you're NOT selling, it's going to be less effective. You begin to lose the prospects attention whenever you talk about something they're not interested in.

Again, it's entirely possible for your misinformation to just happen upon your prospect's fears. In the financial industry, probably mostly any industry, there are some well-known "pain points" that apply to a large number of people. But it's not universal.

I've actually had people come up to me saying they want to get into something high-risk. Nobody wants high-risk. What they really mean to say is they're willing to tolerate high risk if they can get a higher long-run yield. But because they equate that to wanting high risk, if a con man were to go up to one of these people and start telling them about all of these (false) risks involved in what they're currently invested in, the prospect might be thinking, "Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted."

A more effective way to run the same con is to first fish out in the discovery phase that the person wants high risk. A follow-up question or two will actually reveal the person is interested in very high yield. So the misinformation you want to give regarding his current investment is NOT going on and on about the risks. That might work for most people, but with this person, misinformation about how the yield on his current investment is capped would be more effective.

The point is, whether it's a con, intimidation, seduction or anything else, it's always going to work best when using this procedure. Without discovery, you're only ever guessing at what will work. (How many times have we seen a hero in a movie threatened or tortured without ever giving up anything, then the bad guy puts a gun to a loved one's head, and that changes everything?)

I can see your point here. But my con example assumes that what's important for the target is already known, so the discovery happened.
There's just no "close". Once he or she accepts the facts, the target gets the wrong conclusion without our help.

QuoteI consider the elemental social skills to be detecting lies, lying convincingly, reading between the lines, and effective communication. Whatever the actual skill is in the game, it's going to have one or more of those four applications.

I'd call "reading between the lines" to be more of a bureaucratic skill, but other than that, I agree:).

QuoteThe player is ultimately going to pitch an idea and it will either be a good match for the NPC's hidden motive or not. If there is an applicable skill and means for obtaining the information necessary to make a guess educated then I suppose it could from the character as well.

OK, variable works for me.

QuoteYes, the most important thing to communicate is that you realize the prospect is only going to do something that is in his best interest, and you wouldn't expect him to do otherwise. Getting a "no" and doing more discovery adds to your credibility that you care about what this person wants.

I work with some people whose sales script is a typical one, not much discovery aside from a weak pre-qualification, and so instead of having a summary question going into the pitch, they have a line "Maybe this could help you out." I teach them to sound as uncertain as possible when saying that line. At least that's what I teach when I'm not being a wise-ass saying, "Take everything you know about sales and do just the opposite."

Great, glad I was getting you right, then.

QuoteYes, the biggest pitfall in persuasion is not getting a "no" but getting a non-committal answer. You call back again and again and again wasting a lot of time when there never was a chance of closing the deal. A good intro heads this off with an "up-front contract." An example of that, "If at any point you feel that this is not something that's of interest to you, do you feel comfortable telling me that?"

Yeah, one difference between sales and persuasion of the kind PCs are doing is that you have to persuade a specific person. A lack of interest isn't acceptable, except as a means to signal you to change the proposal.
So I saved the guy from Sales some time by cutting him off after less than 2 minutes. But if he was a PC and had to sell me on a given plan, that wouldn't be to his advantage.

QuoteHard closes ought to be rare. And they rarely work. In most cases, going into the close, success or failure has already been determined. This basically gives a character who has skill a last-ditch effort. A character with skill actually has two options here. One of them could be to fall back and revisit discovery to come up with a better proposal. The other option would be go for the hard close.

Going for the hard close obviously saves time. But it's also helpful because in actual play, it might be the PC already went around in circles a few times and is out of "ammunition." It's either go for the hard close or nothing. It should be an extremely difficult roll, about one-tenth normal probability for success, so it should only be used when there's nothing left to lose.

Fun fact, 1/10th normal skill is exactly the difficulty before "you don't get to roll" in RQ6. Then again, it's also your odds of rolling a critical, so maybe "you need a critical" is better:D.
Back to serious, would you make every player roll with these odds? If he hasn't got the character resource skills and is using a hard close instead of the roll, as in your previous example, that would be something like 3% chance for those guys.

QuoteMaybe, maybe not. One unfortunate mindset I see a lot of gamers follow is, recognizing that so much of what we do is entirely subjective, they hang all their judgments on facts that are objective, no matter how insignificant. And then try to argue their significance.

I think you might be up to something here.

QuoteSo, who's to say who has a better quality character background or personality or what have you? But we can point to a page count or word count.

The rules for making a good piece of fiction aren't exactly unknown. It's usually simple to apply them.
Now, many people have unlearned doing that in order to avoid offending the literary challenged (others avoid doing this because they don't care about backstory and only want to see the character in play). But if you care about backstory and don't care who gets offended, it's usually simple.

QuoteI've read plenty of game reviews (not all of them are like this but there are a lot of them) that focus on things like page count, font size, and margins but don't seem to say anything that would help me determine whether or not the game is fun. Or they might harp on the "production value" and "quality of artwork" without ever mentioning whether or not it fits the game or enhances the mood. Some of the cheesy ink sketches from the 1st Ed DMG do more for the product than a full color glossy of some "really serious RPG scene" would have. Of course, that's just a matter of opinion.

Yeah, I admit I tend to skip those parts of the reviews as well;).

Quote from: Omnifray;867752Fail in what sense?

In the sense simply that it produces the same results as pure conversational roleplay?

Or in the sense that both that method and pure conversational roleplay fail to give effect to players' social stats if the player is more persuasive than the GM?

Fail in the sense that the people with high actual skill get disproportionately higher returns on even moderate investment in the social arena. Like, "someone with only a moderate investment in social skills overpowering all the social encounters without breaking a sweat" disproportionate.

QuoteI'm not convinced that any of my players have been significantly more persuasive than me, but whether they have or haven't, I've never noticed significant problems with this approach.

If none of them were significantly better, you simply haven't encountered it.
If any of them has been significantly better, you might have been prevented from noticing it;). No, I'm not kidding.

QuoteHowever, if (which I doubt) you're right, then perhaps that helps to explain why the Pundit thinks that the GM has to be the Alpha Male of the Group, shoes I easily fill of course * chest-beating + roar *

The example I'm thinking of is my wife's characters, and frankly, I'm sure she wouldn't care that you're the Alpha Male of the group:p. I can guarantee she's not going to participate in the manliness competition, so as far as she cares, you can assume you won the chest-beating and are to be considered forever manlier than her:D!
So yeah, that's my experience with this approach. Again, it works for most other cases, and only really great disparity makes it break.

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.

The issue with the last bit of this scenario is the assumption that the Lord Duke will not give up his heir as lost and simply get his entourage to wipe out the bandits anyway, instead of ransoming.

Most Dukes have multiple heirs anyway, what's losing one really cost?