conversation diplomacy intimidation playspaces referee running sessions

Diplomacy

Core Concepts

Stakes

  • Objective Stakes: The concrete goals of the diplomatic encounter (e.g., forming an alliance, negotiating a peace treaty).

  • Personal Stakes: What each participating character has to lose or gain on a personal level, emotionally or materially.

    • WHAT IF: Stakes were how much MIND each character is willing to bet on the outcome…?

That’s an intriguing idea and adds another layer of complexity and risk to diplomatic encounters. Incorporating such a wager system can make players more invested in the outcome, knowing they have something immediate to lose or gain. Here’s how you might implement this:

Stakes as MIND Points Wager

Setting the Wager

  1. Initial Phase: At the start of the diplomatic encounter, each player decides how many MIND points they are willing to wager for the negotiation to be successful. This is their “Stake.”

  2. Group Decision: Alternatively, the party can collectively decide on a common wager, pooling their MIND points together for a shared Stake.

During the Diplomatic Encounter

  1. Boosting Actions: Players can spend MIND points from their wager to boost their diplomatic rolls, giving them a better chance of gaining IPs.

  2. Direct Influence: At the GM’s discretion, MIND points from the wager can also be spent to directly influence the IP score.

  3. Limited Pool: Players can only use MIND points up to the amount of their initial wager during the negotiation. If they run out, they can no longer boost actions or directly influence IPs using MIND points.

Crisis Phase

  1. Heightened Risk: The wagered MIND points become even more crucial during the Crisis Phase. Successful actions can either save or doom the stake.

  2. Final Gambit: Players can choose to spend a significant portion of their remaining wager to attempt a high-risk, high-reward action. Success can lead to immediate resolution in their favor, while failure can have severe consequences.

Outcomes

  1. Successful Negotiation: Players regain all MIND points they did not spend from their wager. This could also include some bonus points or other rewards based on the importance of the negotiation and the level of success.

  2. Unsuccessful Negotiation: Players lose all the MIND points they wagered, affecting their MIND Aspect Pool until they have a chance to recover.

  3. Partial Success/Failure: In the event of a mixed outcome, players could regain a portion of their wagered MIND points, at the GM’s discretion.

This system introduces a palpable sense of risk and reward. It makes the diplomatic encounters not just a question of narrative success or failure but also a meaningful gameplay mechanic that interacts directly with the characters’ abilities.

Influence

  • Influence Points (IP): Quantifiable markers of how well you’re doing in the negotiation. IPs can be both earned and spent to unlock advantages or actions.

  • Influence Threshold: A set IP value, reaching which triggers a “Crisis Phase” that will lead to a resolution.

Influence Points (IP)

IPs are the currency of diplomatic encounters. They represent the ‘upper hand’ a party has in negotiations.

How IPs are Gained or Lost

  1. Successful Diplomatic Actions: Successfully rolling a persuasion check, deception, or any other relevant skill gains the acting party a set number of IPs.

    • Note: Different actions may have different IP values attached. For example, successfully identifying and meeting a crucial need of the other party may yield more IPs than a simple persuasion roll.

  2. Effective Posture: Choosing a counter posture against the opposing party’s posture grants bonus IPs.

  3. Failing Diplomatic Actions: A failure to persuade, deceive, etc., will cause the acting party to lose IPs.

  4. MIND Aspect Spending: Players can spend MIND points to either boost their rolls, making it easier to gain IPs, or directly influence the IP level (at the GM’s discretion).

  5. Special Events: These are event-based IPs that can be awarded for out-of-the-box thinking, or when a certain storyline event influences the negotiation, such as revealing a hidden piece of information.

  6. Disposition Change: A change in disposition will have an immediate effect on IPs. For example, improving disposition might add bonus IPs.

Phases of Diplomatic Interaction

1. First Contact

Mechanics:

  • Determine initial stakes and assess the disposition of the parties involved.

  • Initial skill checks to evaluate the situation or gather information about the other party.

MIND Integration:

  • Players can spend MIND points to recall pertinent historical or cultural facts to aid in understanding the other party’s position or to improve their first impression.

2. Exchange and Argument

Mechanics:

  • Players and NPCs take turns to make “Diplomatic Actions” like persuading, bluffing, or making concessions.

  • Successful actions earn IPs, failed ones can reduce IPs or raise the stakes.

MIND Integration:

  • MIND points can be used to boost skill checks for Diplomatic Actions or to read into the other party’s real intentions.

3. Crisis Phase

Mechanics:

  • Triggered when the IP count reaches the Influence Threshold.

  • The group must make high-stakes decisions, like making a significant concession or taking a definitive stand.

  • Risky actions can drastically change the outcome and may involve additional skill checks.

MIND Integration:

  • MIND points can be spent to gain insight into the best course of action to resolve the crisis favorably, or to sway a party dramatically towards your viewpoint.

Crisis Phase

The Crisis Phase is triggered when either party accumulates enough IPs to reach the predefined Influence Threshold.

What Happens During the Crisis Phase

  1. Raised Stakes: The stakes of the negotiation are raised, either broadening the scope of the negotiation or introducing new, more serious, elements.

  2. Limited Actions: During this phase, both parties are limited to only a few high-impact actions that have a much higher IP reward or penalty.

  3. Heightened Risk: The risk of a negotiation breaking down is heightened. Failure during the Crisis Phase can lead to severe or lasting consequences, including a breakdown in talks, triggering of hostilities, etc.

  4. MIND Aspect: The spending of MIND points becomes more impactful. Its use could potentially avert a crisis or push the talks to a rapid conclusion.

  5. Critical Moments: Certain diplomatic actions become available that can immediately resolve the Crisis Phase if successful but can have severe drawbacks if failed.

How the Crisis Phase is Resolved

  1. Successful Crisis Action: A party succeeds in a high-impact action, accumulating enough IPs to push the talks to a resolution.

  2. Failing Crisis Action: A party fails at a crucial moment, leading to a breakdown in talks or triggering the negative outcomes associated with the Crisis Phase.

  3. Special Resolution: Outside events or revelations can bring an abrupt end to the Crisis Phase, either positively or negatively.

  4. Mutual Agreement: Both parties agree to de-escalate, reverting back to the Exchange and Argument Phase but with a penalty to the party that triggered the Crisis.

4. Resolution and Consequence

Mechanics:

  • The diplomatic encounter is resolved based on accumulated IPs and the actions taken during the Crisis Phase.

  • The group faces the consequences, good or bad, which could affect their future interactions and reputation.

MIND Integration:

  • MIND points can be spent one last time to mitigate negative consequences or to cement positive gains, effectively “sealing the deal.”

Initial Dispositions

  1. Hostile

    • Definition: The party is considered an enemy, and there is a high level of mistrust and aggression.
    • Effect: Starting Influence Points (IP) are negative. Certain diplomatic actions like persuasion might be initially locked until some level of trust is restored.

  2. Unfriendly

    • Definition: The party is not trusted and must work to gain any form of alliance or agreement.
    • Effect: Starting IP is low. Persuasion and concession actions are less effective initially.

  3. Neutral

    • Definition: No strong feelings one way or another. The party is considered a potential ally or enemy.
    • Effect: Starting IP is zero. All diplomatic actions are available and operate at standard effectiveness.

  4. Amicable

    • Definition: The party is trusted to a degree and seen as a potential ally.
    • Effect: Starting IP is slightly above zero. Persuasion and concession actions are more effective.

  5. Friendly

    • Definition: The party is considered an ally, but must still negotiate terms.
    • Effect: Starting IP is high. Almost all diplomatic actions are easier to execute, and their effectiveness is increased.

  6. Devoted

    • Definition: The party is deeply trusted, almost to the point of unconditional support.
    • Effect: Starting IP is very high. The Crisis Phase is harder to trigger, as the party already enjoys significant concessions.

Mechanics for Changing Disposition

  • Incremental Change: Successful diplomatic actions may not only increase IPs but also improve the disposition by one level. For example, moving from “Unfriendly” to “Neutral.”

  • Sudden Shift: Certain critical success or failure in diplomatic actions can lead to sudden shifts, skipping a level either up or down.

  • Special Conditions: Some special events or actions (like a betrayal or a significant favor) can immediately change the disposition level.

  • Posture Impact: An effective counter-posture could improve the disposition incrementally, while an ineffective posture could worsen it.

By incorporating initial disposition, GMs can get a sense of how to set the initial stage of the diplomatic encounter. They also get guidelines for how easy or difficult it will be for the player party to accumulate IPs, what actions might be available or restricted, and how the encounter’s dynamics can change over time.

Postures

1. Aggressive

  • Effect: Attempts to dominate the conversation, steamrolling objections to push your point of view.

  • Counter: Cautious, Reflective

2. Cautious

  • Effect: Measured and calculated, you give little away while evaluating the other party’s intentions.

  • Counter: Obsequious, Inquisitive

3. Obsequious

  • Effect: Act submissive to lull the other party into a false sense of security or superiority.

  • Counter: Aggressive, Domineering

4. Domineering

  • Effect: Assert your authority to intimidate and control the flow of the conversation.

  • Counter: Reflective, Inquisitive

5. Reflective

  • Effect: Constantly assess and reassess the conversation, adapting your approach as needed.

  • Counter: Cautious, Aggressive

6. Inquisitive

  • Effect: Ask probing questions to reveal the other party’s motivations and weaknesses.

  • Counter: Domineering, Obsequious

Mechanics

  • At the start of each phase, players can choose a Posture for their party, either openly or secretly depending on the rules.

  • Each posture will grant Advantage or Disadvantage on certain types of “Diplomatic Actions” based on its effectiveness against the opponent’s posture.

  • Changing Posture mid-phase could be allowed but at a cost, either in Influence Points or MIND points.

MIND Integration

  • Spend MIND Points to “Read” the Room: At the cost of MIND points, players can make a skill check to anticipate the posture of the opposing party for the next phase.

  • Spend MIND Points to “Adapt”: Players can spend MIND points to change their Posture without the typical cost, representing a quick mental adjustment.

  • Spend MIND Points to “Double Down”: If a player is confident their Posture will counter the opponent’s, they can spend MIND points to deepen their commitment to it, increasing its effectiveness if they’re correct.

Example: Diplomatic Encounter: Treaty of Elmsworth

Summary

The party must negotiate a peace treaty between the human kingdom and the elven alliance. Failure could lead to continued conflict and loss of life.

Stakes

Objective Stakes:

  • Ceasefire between human and elven forces.
  • Exchange of prisoners.

Personal Stakes:

  • Party gains or loses favor with either faction, affecting future interactions.

Participants

Player Party

  • Diplomatic skills advised: Persuasion, Insight, History

Opposition Party (Elven Alliance)

  • Initial Disposition: Unfriendly
  • Diplomatic Skills: Deception, Insight, Intimidation
  • Preferred Postures: Cautious, Reflective

Encounter Phases

  1. First Contact: The party must assess the elven representatives’ intentions and decide their own posture.

  2. Exchange and Argument: Both parties propose terms, counteroffer, and try to reach a middle ground.

  3. Crisis Phase: Triggered when either party accumulates 50 Influence Points.

  4. Resolution and Consequence: The treaty is either signed or discarded, with corresponding consequences.

Special Rules

  1. Elven Pride: Elves are likely to react negatively to aggressive or domineering postures.

  2. Cultural Nuances: Successful History or Culture checks can reveal valuable information about elven customs, providing advantage on subsequent rolls.

Influence Points (IP)

  • Initial IP: Both parties start with 0.

  • Influence Threshold: 50

  • Accumulated IP Affects:

    • 10-20 IP: Party gains slight concessions.
    • 21-40 IP: Significant concessions from the opposite party.
    • 41-49 IP: Almost at a crisis point; stakes are raised.
    • 50+ IP: Crisis Phase is triggered.