Social Interaction Part 1: The Problem with Persuasion
Social Interaction is About the Target
The Essence of Persuasion
I was a nationally competitive debater all through college, and have certainly put some thought into the arts of rhetoric and persuasion, and find the common wisdom quite true that debate is usually not actually particularly persuasive when it comes to changing people’s opinions. The exception of course lies in topics on which opinions have yet to be formed - a compelling argument can be very persuasive in that circumstance. But generally speaking, people are set in their ways, and the opinions they hold are difficult to change.
The French philosopher Blaise Pascal wisely wrote, “When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all sides . . . People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.” True persuasion is a matter of framing the issues such that they are in agreement with what people already believe, and in showing how what someone already holds true naturally suggests another position.
In that vein then, it is critically important to recognize that persuasion is more about the person being persuaded than about the soundness of the case presented. Likewise, a given attempt depends greatly upon how susceptible the target is to it. This is not to say the strength of the attempt is irrelevant - a poor attempt may well fail even if it makes the right appeals - but that the circumstances and opinions of the target are a fundamentally necessary component to truly simulate interaction.
It is, however, quite a bit of oft-unnecessary work to understand the perceptions and positions of characters in a roleplaying game, and harder still to objectively evaluate the relevance of such so that it can have mechanical impact. That said, a simpler shortcut presents itself: just as people favor certain arguments, they favor certain approaches.
Persuasion in RPGs
In D&D terms, one guard might be bribable, and another not, and that depends much more upon the guard being bribed (and the size of the bribe) than upon the skillfulness with which the bribe is offered. True skill lies in knowing which guard to offer a bribe to, and how much to offer. Notably, in a game in the tradition of D&D, those are player skills.
It is easy to object that a bribe is not persuasion in the traditional sense, and is instead about moral character. But it is easy to extend the example to other forms of charismatic influence:
The dragon might be proud and vain, and open to flattery; or it might be discerning and shrewd, and punish such a transparent ploy.
The duchess is either open to seduction, or not, and this is generally more about her than the seducer so long as he meets her standards (however much he might like to think otherwise).
The count might be a cunning negotiator, open to haggling over the ransom he offered to return a favored henchmen, or he might consider such bargaining below his station and withdraw entirely.
The orc is either a coward who will yield when surrounded, or a warrior who will fight to the death.
“But what about plain Diplomacy, the default interaction?” There is no such thing. “Diplomacy” might mean Protocol, it might mean Flattery, it might mean Bargaining, but there’s really no such thing as a generic diplomatic action. Newer editions conflating these concepts has unnecessarily muddied these waters.
Interestingly, many old school games get the last item above right even when reactions are treated in a PC-centric manner: Morale is an attribute of a creature, that suggests its willingness to fight on or resist intimidation. One could imagine Vanity and Fidelity as similar stats, to represent a creature’s openness to Flattery and Seduction respectively. The obvious downside to such an approach is that it gets to be a lot of extra numbers to track for each creature. Counting through the B/X bestiary, 42% (88/208) distinct monsters have trivial Morale scores (either +0, or always succeed); adding more such attributes would likely be more work than it’s worth. But when such things do come up, Morale is a much better basis of adjudication than a CHA check, and it makes more sense to modify it on the basis of “are my buddies covering my back?” than “did they make particularly gruesome threats?” Once again, the details of circumstance are more relevant than the quality of the appeal.
Likewise, consider Loyalty rolls. The AD&D 1e DMG has an extensive table of Loyalty modifiers for henchmen - adjustments based on the nature of the relationship, how long it has lasted, the henchman’s degree of training, the amount of pay received, treatment, the henchman’s racial and alignment preferences, etc. There is also a bonus for their employer’s Charisma and Alignment. However, taken holistically, the employer’s Charisma is by no means a dominating factor - the maximum bonus for Charisma is +40 on d%. For comparison, just being a henchmen gives +35% Loyalty. The liege being present gives +15%, with another +5% for each live henchmen within sight - the way my players roll, even only counting henchmen to the same liege that’s giving all henchmen Loyalty scores easily upwards of +70% while delving, before even accounting for treatment, gifts of magic items, and the like.
The fact that circumstantial modifiers and the choice of approach predominate is, in my opinion, a good thing for gaming. When innate statistics and character abilities are more influential to an outcome than the details of present circumstances, there is little room for player skill. Conversely, when circumstantial modifiers are more important than character statistics, there is great room for skillful play to maneuver favorably, and the game as a whole becomes more complex and dynamic. Henchmen loyalty being influenced by the way they are treated is directly tying player actions to game outcomes and giving them more influence over how things proceed within the world. This will be easier for those with high CHA, as it should be, but the game benefits when there is room for player skill to cover a deficiency of character talent in reasonable circumstances - and the greatest fun perhaps emerges when player skill synergizes with character talent to accomplish things that might be otherwise impossible.
Thoughts on a Solution
The downside of course to the excellent AD&D Loyalty mechanics is that they are complicated and require extensive table lookups. This is mitigated by the fact that Loyalty can be calculated in advance and doesn’t usually vary substantially until something occurs that would cause a reevaluation, but nonetheless the simplest solution that preserves outcomes is generally desirable.
I am still testing and refining my thoughts on this matter, and they are by no means conclusive. But I do think the Morale system is worth further investigation. A number of approaches could be defined, and then creatures have a bonus or penalty to be approached by each, which carries forward through character traits to become perceptible by players. For example, a nobleman who is discerning but greedy would be clearly better to approach by bribery than flattery. Some of these modifiers could be specific to the individual in that fashion, while others could be racial or cultural (a barbarian warleader is unlikely to react well to court formalities, but most dragons can be bribed or flattered). To simplify and keep modifiers from abounding, most creatures should have no modifier with most approaches, and trivial modifiers will be simply unlisted.
I am continuing to ponder ways to further simplify this framework and require less tracking (and shorter statblocks). In the meanwhile, I am hoping in the next few days to examine a number of “social combat” systems that purport to have made interaction a more complete sort of game.