Negociating with a villain

[Eminence_Grise]

Hello everyone!


I would greatly appreciate advice regarding the art of negociation with a villain. In a lot of Adventure Paths or modules, it is suggested that players negociate with 1 villain to take down another. That's great in theory, but I was never able to convincingly negociate with the players.


I feel like my arguments are not convincing enough. We still get a kick out of playing together, but I feel I could do more on the role-playing side.


How do you handle such a situation?

 

[Janx]

since nobody's commented on this, and I have a moment.

1st mistake in those modules is in suggesting the players do anything. The players don't read the module, how are they supposed to know what is "suggested". And it's not for the GM to be suggesting things to players in some circles anyway.

Next on the docket is getting players to think of negotiation, and see it as a viable solution.

step 1: don't make your villains so disgustingly evil that the players can't stand the thought of cooperating with them. At least not the ones you want to setup as your first candidates for negotiation. Once negotiation is time-honored tradition with your party, you can setup a situation where a really bad guy wants to legitimately negotiate

step 2: don't screw the party over in a negotiation double-cross. I assume you already have a party of murder-hobos. Taming them so they'll try talking to their adversaries instead of killing them is undone when you have the negotiation turn into a double-cross. Seriously don't do it until you have a proven track record of a tame party.

step 3: insert tales and examples of negotiation working in the past with certain individuals. Players need to hear "oh, I can talk to that guy and he won't screw me outright?"

step 4: have the NPC make an overture to negotiate. not for surrender, but for trade over the disputed resource or to redirect hostility to a common enemy. Make your NPC stick to the deal, perhaps becoming an ally. This creates an example of trust with the players, and shows they can save time/resources/risk by negotiating with some people.

step 5: make negotiating less work/hassle than murdering everybody. Players really have a "if lighting it on fire is easier, I should do that" mentality. You have to make negotiating not suck.

 

[Umbran]

1st mistake in those modules is in suggesting the players do anything. The players don't read the module, how are they supposed to know what is "suggested".

But that's not what that suggestion is for. It is there to suggest *to the GM* that the NPC in question, by the writer's intention, might well be open to negotiation. Just like the PCs can get stuck in the rut of "if it is easier to light it on fire, I do that", so GMs can also get stuck in behavior patterns, including turning down attempts to negotiate and just skipping to the combat.

Next on the docket is getting players to think of negotiation, and see it as a viable solution.

Most of your points are good ones, though I think the order ought to be reconsidered:

Step 1: Find a way to message to the PCs that the NPC is *willing* to talk, and might bear fruit. If they don't get this message from you, they are unlikely to try at all. So, have the NPC talk to them to say something other than, "Kill them all! Now!" Remember that banter between opposing sides is a fantasy genre staple anyway!

Step 1a: Find a way to message to the PCs that fighting might be a costly endeavor... for both sides. For PCs, it is usually enough to win - if they win, everyone survives. A win for the NPC probably means some number of mooks lost, at least. And if Baron Killemall gets a rep for having is people die all the time, he won't be getting new people, or he'll have to pay them more for the higher risk. The result is that the Baron can show up to the fight with overwhelming force, but still not actually think fighting is his best option, either. Play the NPC like you would a PC - and use up resources only when necessary.

In many games, someone with social skills and/or a high Intelligence or Wisdom can usually suss these points out. I have often used the tool of "please make a check" to get across to the player something that would be obvious to someone living in the world, when the player is only there a few hours every week or two.

Your Step 2 holds. Screwing people over is bad business for most NPCs. Only some of them will seriously throw an agreement out the window just 'cause.

 

[Eminence_Grise]

Janx, that's amazing advice! It's the kind of thing I never thought by myself before. How is that possible!?!

 

[Janx]

Janx, that's amazing advice! It's the kind of thing I never thought by myself before. How is that possible!?!

Thanks, but I didn't think of everything either. That's why I responded, so somebody like Umbran could offer some fine tuning.

Some big hurdles to get the players over is that "killing people and taking their stuff" is often the easiest and best solution in a stereotypical D&D game. Part of that is from negative conditioning that NPCs can't be trusted. if players have that mindset, they will see negotiation as more work and less reliable than violence.

Since the GM is really the final arbiter of "what really works" by way of what they choose to make happen next, the ball is in the GM's court to tone that down.

An important thing to remember is when given a GM advice guideline of "never do XYZ", obviously,you can ignore it and break that rule. But the reality is often that unless you are really good at GMing and you truly do it sparingly, breaking the rule of thumb is what causes problems.

So in this case, "avoid betraying the party over a negotiation" is a good rule of thumb to follow when your goal is to entice the party to negotiate more often. Avoid the temptation to break it because "you know what you're doing..."

 

[Celebrim]

step 2: don't screw the party over in a negotiation double-cross. I assume you already have a party of murder-hobos. Taming them so they'll try talking to their adversaries instead of killing them is undone when you have the negotiation turn into a double-cross

For me, this always proves to be the sticking point, but not for the reason you think. The big reason I find that villain negotiation breaks down is the villain is aware that the party is a bunch of blood thirsty treacherous thugs that can't be trusted and have a history of backstabbing anyone that negotiates with them. What's in it for the villain when the PC's are just going to murder him after he cooperates anyway?

For me, this frequently becomes a problem, because I mistakenly make one of my "three clues" the confession or assistance of the baddie. But the biggest problem hasn't been the NPC getting killed before he can parley, the biggest problem is that even if a parley happens the PC's are usually lousy negotiators that clearly can't be trusted. And once word gets out that they are dishonest and not good for their word, it gets really hard for them to be persuasive. I'm usually reminded of the negotiations between Inigo and The Man in Black regarding whether the MiB will trust Inigo to work with him, given that Inigo is obviously just waiting around to kill him - only in this case the PC's are Inigo Montoya. The best the PC's can usually come up with is something like, "I give you my word as an adventurer."

 

[Janx]

For me, this always proves to be the sticking point, but not for the reason you think. The big reason I find that villain negotiation breaks down is the villain is aware that the party is a bunch of blood thirsty treacherous thugs that can't be trusted and have a history of backstabbing anyone that negotiates with them. What's in it for the villain when the PC's are just going to murder him after he cooperates anyway?

For me, this frequently becomes a problem, because I mistakenly make one of my "three clues" the confession or assistance of the baddie. But the biggest problem hasn't been the NPC getting killed before he can parley, the biggest problem is that even if a parley happens the PC's are usually lousy negotiators that clearly can't be trusted. And once word gets out that they are dishonest and not good for their word, it gets really hard for them to be persuasive. I'm usually reminded of the negotiations between Inigo and The Man in Black regarding whether the MiB will trust Inigo to work with him, given that Inigo is obviously just waiting around to kill him - only in this case the PC's are Inigo Montoya. The best the PC's can usually come up with is something like, "I give you my word as an adventurer."

Good point. Hypothetically, I'm asking the GM to turn a blind eye to the PC's bad reputation, and the player's lousy real world social skills.

One adjustment might be that as you say, the players aren't trustworthy. So perhaps the NPC, who needs the deal to work out, focuses on preventing or being prepared for a double-cross. In which case, if the deal goes through, great.

If the deal fails because the players can't keep their eye on the ball, the NPC isn't a chump fight with his pants down.

In fact, that might be part of how you show the futility of backstabbing the negotiation, is that the other party stands doubly prepared for it. So the easy path becomes obvious as "talking without betraying = less work, more reward"

 

[Celebrim]

Good point. Hypothetically, I'm asking the GM to turn a blind eye to the PC's bad reputation, and the player's lousy real world social skills.

One adjustment might be that as you say, the players aren't trustworthy. So perhaps the NPC, who needs the deal to work out, focuses on preventing or being prepared for a double-cross. In which case, if the deal goes through, great.

Thieves are used to working with thieves. That's not really the problem. The problem is that setting up this situation where negotiation is favorable to both parties when both parties are basically ruthless is difficult. And looking at it another way:

step 1: The villain isn't disgustingly evil.
step 2: The villain isn't looking to double cross the PC's.
step 3: The villain has an honorable reputation.
step 4: The villain opens up peaceful relations with the PC's.
step 5: The villain is clearly powerful and capable and not a push over.

The problem in this scenario is the players tend to make the determination: "This guy isn't a villain. This guy is an ally! And this guy is great! We can totally trust this guy! He's so cool. He's got poison. He's not afraid to torture people for information. He employs assassins. There is totally nothing that can go wrong here."

This leaves me as a DM in another bind. First, if the PC's later discover, "Wait, Master Blackguard knows so much about the villain because Master Blackguard is a slaver that steals children and supplies them to the very demonic cult we've been fighting! I never saw that coming! He was so Sauvé! He had panache! He offered us loot!", there is a tendency to treat this as betrayal on the NPC's part: "We've totally been had. I thought this was the cool sort of evil person, but really he's loathsome greedy man that would sale his own grandmother if the price was right! He's totally been working with the bad guys all along! We're totally going to ambush and kill him!" It rarely occurs to them that Master Blackgaurd, despite his comparative lack of morals, is negotiating in part because his own dealings are starting to sicken him and he thinks maybe the other villain is really beyond the pale, and after discovering he's really 'guilty' there tends to be a tendency for the PC's to cease to negotiate in good faith much less adopt some really advanced technique like trying to needle the villain's own atrophied conscious further.

But if on the other hand the character is all the above and really has no foibles worse than the fact he's cheating the imperial tax collectors regarding the pistachio tariff, there is a tendency for the 'villain' here to probably be more sparkling clean and decent than the PC's tend to be with the ultimate result that I'm not really convinced that if this really is a villain negotiation, it certainly won't be the player's that see it that way.

Fundamentally the problem tends to be that most players find anti-heroes and anti-villains more glamorous than heroes, and that comes out both in how most players play their PC's, and what NPC's most players will admire and desire to associate with.

 

[Boris2112]

The only suggestion that I can make. Come up with a personality matrix. What drives the NPC. Likes dislikes aspirations. For me I simply have a set system 1.0-6.0 range on a few different attributes of any npc that will do any interactions that require personality. Joy, energy, social, personality, humor, anger, compassion, intelligence. And then I just follow that frame work. Anger for example 1.0=Furious-Gets angry at the tiniest of things. 6.0=Collected at all times, never looses temper, most anger is shown for a purpose the NPC never looses control. As for scripting I suggest that you lay out a few points that need to be made. Cause if you go to hard into a script the players will leave it faster than you can say what.