Social Conflict
Not all matters are settled with violence. If the players and NPCs are in conflict and violence is not desirable, is off the table, or is just rude, the first step is, of course, talking it out. To prevent negotiations from boiling down to a matter of opinion (with players and Warden both feeling like their side of the story is “correct”), you can use the following system.
Set Stakes
First, both parties define what success and failure would look like. The players state what the desired outcome of the negotiation would be (within reason), and the Warden will state what the outcome of failure would be.
The party wants the mayor to lend them some of his city guards to attack a nearby monster’s den. Success would mean gaining the troops. Failure would mean that the mayor denies the request — and refuses to speak to the party in the future.
Determine Composure
Next, set the Composure of both sides. Composure is equal to one’s WIL and acts as the HP of negotiations. Loss of Composure does not mean damage to WIL.
If a side of the argument consists of multiple members (like a party of Player Characters), use the average WIL Score (rounded up) as Composure.
The mayor has a WIL of 12 and thus 12 Composure. The party (Beatrice, Moralil, and Trent) has WIL scores of 12, 7, and 14, with an average of 11, and thus a Composure of 11.
Making a Point
Next, players pick what type of argument they wish to make. There are 3 types:
-
Attack. You accuse, argue, intimidate, or challenge — anything to drive your opponent back.
-
Defend. You use your best facts, logic, arguments, and rationale. You’re sticking to the core of the issue as best you can.
-
Flourish. You charm, flirt, seduce, or taunt in an attempt to break your opponent’s focus (and perhaps to lighten the mood, too).
The Warden is advised to determine which 2 types of arguments best fit the NPC. Expert negotiators might choose all 3. Furthermore, the Warden should let the fiction inform the type of argument. If the party made a good Attack in the previous round, the NPC might choose to Defend. Attentive players should be able to somewhat predict what is going to happen!
Both Warden and Players pick their argument in secret and then reveal them at the same time.
The mayor is a veteran and lost his right thumb fighting monsters in the past. He’s protective of his troops and thus reluctant to send more men to die. The Warden determines that the mayor is likely to Defend and Attack; he’s not likely to be charming or witty, so no Flourish. He’s heard of the party stirring up a ruckus about reinforcements before and opens with Defend. The party decides to open with an Attack.
Resolving The Round
Both sides reveal their arguments.
-
Defend beats Attack. The other party is clearly trying to get under my skin, and it’s clear their arguments are weak.
-
Flourish beats Defend. I know I have the facts on my si- did… did they just wink at me? Is it warm in here, or is it just me?
-
Attack beats Flourish. You can flutter your eyes at me all you want; you’re still clearly a child pretending that they belong at the grown-ups’ table.
If one argument beats another, the winning side gets to deal 1d8 to the losing side’s Composure. The losing side still deals 1d4 damage — arguing always costs energy, concentration, and effort.
If both sides choose matching arguments, the resulting shouting match (of insults, facts, or compliments) deals 1d6 damage on both ends.
Before rolls are made, look at the arguments and try to imagine what both parties might argue at each other, using the argument types as prompts. Next, the losing side briefly acts out or describes their side’s argument and rolls the damage dice. Now, the winning side gets to retort. They too describe or act out their counterpoint and roll the damage dice.
The party, having barged into the mayor’s office and chosen to Attack, makes their point. Beatrice: “Listen here - while you’ve been sitting here comfy in your office, the farmers have had to deal with another troll attack. It’s time to do something about it!”. The party rolls 1d4: a 3. The mayor retorts with his Defense: “You outsiders… what do you know about us? If I send my men out there, who will be here to defend the village from other dangers? What if someone gets hurt?” The mayor rolls 1d8: a 5.
It could be argued that both sides have a point in this example — which is why it’s nice that we have a procedure to arbitrate this argument for us!
Repeat & Result
Keep making points and resolving rolls until one side’s Composure has been reduced to 0. If both sides’ Composure reaches 0 in the same round, you agree to disagree — and can return to the negotiation table when you’ve both cleared your heads. This generally means that the status quo remains as-is. Feel free to interpret “losing composure” in various ways; in some contexts, it might mean nothing, but in others, it means you get thrown out of a fancy costume ball.
Wardens should use the outcome of each previous round as input for the next. In our example, the mayor might be likely to Attack next. He won the previous round; time to go on the offensive!