Resolving conflict and achieving outcomes without combat

[Manbearcat]

I'm not familiar with the system. What determines what a critical success roll is (is it always two sizes?) and what the critical success roll accomplishes? How does it differ if I try to convince Sauron to do something vs trying to convince a lesser being?

Blades action resolution is as follows:

Position (Desperate > Risky > Controlled) governs threat level/consequences.

Effect (Limited > Standard > Great) governs what you can accomplish.

1-3 = Failure
4/5 = Success w/ Complication
6 = Success
6 * 2 = Critical Success

————-

If the players were to be in a social conflict with a Supernatural entity like Sauron, several things would intersect:

1) He would be Magnitude 6 (so tops). If your Crew Tier + other stuff that would amplify your relative Tier doesn’t equal 6, then you’re Position is going to be Desperate (meaning consequences on a 1-3 are going to be catastrophic and on a 4-5, they will be significant). Effect is Factored with several features (Scale, Potency, Quality) so you can uptier in more ways, but you’d still start as Limited Effect unless you can marshal Factors.

Players can make Setup moves and have abilities that allow them to increase Position or Effect. One can be negotiated/traded for the other as well (assuming you’re not sitting at Desperate/Limited).

2) Supernatural means that engaging him is going to create a Supernatural Complication right off the bat (think Ancient Dragon Fear Aura).

You can Resist Complications (which means throttling them back by 1 or 2 phases) via Prowess (if physical), Resolve (if mental/will), or Insight (if deception/understanding) at the risk of Stress (subtract 6 from your highest roll…Crit = clear 1 Stress or get a boon). Stress is the engine of amping stuff up/marshaling resources.

3) Sauron would be a Master level Threat. In D&D terms, this would mean he is like a 4e Solo. His action economy is amped up big time and I'm just straight inflicting Consequence, no action roll to deal with it. You can Resist the Complication though. And because the PCs are likely in a Desperate Position much/most of the time, these Consequences would be significant.

4) Tug of War Clocks or Linked Clocks are how you resolve complex social conflict. Or it might be both. It might be a Mission Clock to even open up the Tug of War Clock to convince Sauron of whatever.

The Clock setup really depends upon the context of the situation overall and the specifics of what you want and what Sauron doesn't want to give up.

In Blades, the only way a Crew would undergo something like this is if (a) they either (i) had means to shut down (2) entirely (this could be gear they acquired via spending Downtime Activities or it could be through PC Special Abilities) and (ii) if they were at least a Tier 4 Crew (MUCH MORE LIKELY a Tier 5 Crew...this is endgame).

The Stress going around to make Setup moves to amplify Effect and/or downthrottle Position and to Resist Complications would be huge. 9 Stress and you're out of a Score and you endure a Trauma (4 and your character is retired). PCs often go into Scores with 1-2 Stress. Getting improved Effect increases your Ticks of Clocks on successful moves. Having better Position decreases the Ticks of Clocks against you when you endure a Consequence. Inevitably, a PC would use a Flashback (which is 0-2 Stress and then an Action Roll to resolve) which opens up their move-space during a Score. A PC would likely accept a Devil's Bargain (which gives them +1d on a move for some sudden or looming thematic complication that they'll have to spend Downtime or a Score to resolve) at some point.

It is going to take significantly skilled play and marshalling everything you've got to win.

I've run 5 Social Scores against +1 or +2 Magnitude (above Crew Tier) Master Threat Demons (one was a Split Score w/ Occult to set up - summon - and Social to parley). Success rate has been 40 % thus far or 2/5. Even on the successes though, the downstream effects perturb play (both the Setting and the Crews + Allies + Enemies machinations) dramatically.

ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY PARLEY WITH DEMONS

 

[pemerton]

GM: Okay, you're acting under fire - you realise that if this doesn't work you're surrounded by a hostile enemy fleet?

Player: Sure

Acting under fire roll: 11

GM: Okay, the Tsarist fleet refuses to fire at you and the sailors cheer as you pass by.

That's how it works in Apocalypse World, with absolutely no need for the GM to predetermine the whys or wherefores of any of the potential outcomes.

This is very interesting. Can you explain why you treat it just as acting under fire, and not as seduce/manipulate? Ie getting the other soldiers to do what you want?

EDIT: In The Green Knight - which emphasises romantic feudal tropes, rather than tropes of solidarity among ordinary people - this would be the space occupied by an Authority check. Which sits under Courage - which is actually not wildly different from an AW check based on Cool.

But I'm still curious about my question.

 

[Cadence]

Blades action resolution is as follows:

Position (Desperate > Risky > Controlled) governs threat level/consequences.

Effect (Limited > Standard > Great) governs what you can accomplish.

1-3 = Failure
4/5 = Success w/ Complication
6 = Success
6 * 2 = Critical Success

————-

If the players were to be in a social conflict with a Supernatural entity like Sauron, several things would intersect:

1) He would be Magnitude 6 (so tops). If your Crew Tier + other stuff that would amplify your relative Tier doesn’t equal 6, then you’re Position is going to be Desperate (meaning consequences on a 1-3 are going to be catastrophic and on a 4-5, they will be significant). Effect is Factored with several features (Scale, Potency, Quality) so you can uptier in more ways, but you’d still start as Limited Effect unless you can marshal Factors.

Players can make Setup moves and have abilities that allow them to increase Position or Effect. One can be negotiated/traded for the other as well (assuming you’re not sitting at Desperate/Limited).

2) Supernatural means that engaging him is going to create a Supernatural Complication right off the bat (think Ancient Dragon Fear Aura).

You can Resist Complications (which means throttling them back by 1 or 2 phases) via Prowess (if physical), Resolve (if mental/will), or Insight (if deception/understanding) at the risk of Stress (subtract 6 from your highest roll…Crit = clear 1 Stress or get a boon). Stress is the engine of amping stuff up/marshaling resources.

3) Sauron would be a Master level Threat. In D&D terms, this would mean he is like a 4e Solo. His action economy is amped up big time and I'm just straight inflicting Consequence, no action roll to deal with it. You can Resist the Complication though. And because the PCs are likely in a Desperate Position much/most of the time, these Consequences would be significant.

4) Tug of War Clocks or Linked Clocks are how you resolve complex social conflict. Or it might be both. It might be a Mission Clock to even open up the Tug of War Clock to convince Sauron of whatever.

The Clock setup really depends upon the context of the situation overall and the specifics of what you want and what Sauron doesn't want to give up.

In Blades, the only way a Crew would undergo something like this is if (a) they either (i) had means to shut down (2) entirely (this could be gear they acquired via spending Downtime Activities or it could be through PC Special Abilities) and (ii) if they were at least a Tier 4 Crew (MUCH MORE LIKELY a Tier 5 Crew...this is endgame).

The Stress going around to make Setup moves to amplify Effect and/or downthrottle Position and to Resist Complications would be huge. 9 Stress and you're out of a Score and you endure a Trauma (4 and your character is retired). PCs often go into Scores with 1-2 Stress. Getting improved Effect increases your Ticks of Clocks on successful moves. Having better Position decreases the Ticks of Clocks against you when you endure a Consequence. Inevitably, a PC would use a Flashback (which is 0-2 Stress and then an Action Roll to resolve) which opens up their move-space during a Score. A PC would likely accept a Devil's Bargain (which gives them +1d on a move for some sudden or looming thematic complication that they'll have to spend Downtime or a Score to resolve) at some point.

It is going to take significantly skilled play and marshalling everything you've got to win.

I've run 5 Social Scores against +1 or +2 Magnitude (above Crew Tier) Master Threat Demons (one was a Split Score w/ Occult to set up - summon - and Social to parley). Success rate has been 40 % thus far or 2/5. Even on the successes though, the downstream effects perturb play (both the Setting and the Crews + Allies + Enemies machinations) dramatically.

ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY PARLEY WITH DEMONS

Thank you very much!!

 

[pemerton]

My players in my 5e campaign often do everything they can to avoid fights, especially with humanoid opponents. It's charming!

The campaign is structured around a quest to kill the BBEG (based on Strahd), and so many of the players like to try to convert smaller villains to their cause. It means that many combats I plan for get resolved through negotiation rather than 0 hit points.

As a DM, I now plan out Plan B resolutions for combat. I think about what the enemy would want, and how to make that ask as challenging as combat would have been.

I differ from some other DMs that I know in that I try to make the outcomes of social skills very transparent. So I'll say something like "if you succeed on this, the enemy will stop attacking but still won't let you through" or "if you succeed on this the enemy will still attack but won't try to kill you" and so on.

I agree that D&D doesn't have a structure for it, so I make a real effort to put one in, especially for this group!

What about if the players make a decision about what they think the "opponent" might want, or about what value to try and appeal to? As I mentioned upthread, the instance of play that I posted in the other thread I linked to in my OP, and that triggered some scepticism from other posters, was that of persuading a huntsman to abandon the pursuit and eating of meat.

That didn't follow from any description in the scenario of what the huntsman might be inclined to want or do. It was an idea that came from a player.

 

[pemerton]

But does what is attempted have an effect on what's needed? Presumably talking Sauron into surrendering by writing him a nice letter is different than trying to talk Faramir into letting you continue on to Mordor in spite of his instructions?

Apocalypse World doesn't use "difficulties". It relies on fictional positioning. Typically there is no fictional positioning which will let someone persuade Sauron into surrendering just by writing a letter.

 

[pemerton]

The usual people are going to jump on me for this, but I think game systems can be a big part of combat as an expectation. If the only buttons a game gives you are for combat, you're incentivized to push those. If social is just one big vague button with no subsystems, it's not nearly as game-y and appealing (in general).

I tend to agree with this, but am interested in a slightly different (though probably closely related) thing - which is what sorts of outcomes for the resolution of conflict are within the scope of social-type action declarations? This is why I've provided examples of outcomes, from Battleship Potemkin and the hunger-to-vegetarian actual play episode.

 

[pemerton]

A question for @Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer - what establishes the scope of outcomes possible in your BitD game?

Having the editor pull or change the story seems clear enough - without knowing too much about the BitD setting, that seems like its well within what one might ask an editor to do. Otherwise there wouldn't be much scope for action declaration vis-a-vis the editor at all.

But what about outcomes that more radically impact the presumed interests of the editor (in publishing all the news that's fit to print, etc)? Manbearcat's post about Sauron sets out some of the basic mechanical elements that would apply, but also notes that "The Clock setup really depends upon the context of the situation overall and the specifics of what you want and what Sauron doesn't want to give up." In the context of this thread, this is what I was particularly hoping to discuss.

 

[chaochou]

This is very interesting. Can you explain why you treat it just as acting under fire, and not as seduce/manipulate? Ie getting the other soldiers to do what you want?

Well, acting under fire is when you do something requiring unusual discipline, resolve, endurance or care. I think that perfectly encompasses the courage of sailing out under your flag in front of the enemy guns and seeing whether the other sailors respect it or reject it. And it's clear that the courage and dignity to do so is part of the reason other servicemen might respect it!

Equally, seduce / manipulate requires leverage - but you've not got leverage and you're not offering anything. So it's not a bargain, it's a show of conviction.

 

[pemerton]

Equally, seduce / manipulate requires leverage - but you've not got leverage and you're not offering anything. So it's not a bargain, it's a show of conviction.

That sits well with my comparison to Authority in The Green Knight.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A question for @Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer - what establishes the scope of outcomes possible in your BitD game?

Having the editor pull or change the story seems clear enough - without knowing too much about the BitD setting, that seems like its well within what one might ask an editor to do. Otherwise there wouldn't be much scope for action declaration vis-a-vis the editor at all.

But what about outcomes that more radically impact the presumed interests of the editor (in publishing all the news that's fit to print, etc)? Manbearcat's post about Sauron sets out some of the basic mechanical elements that would apply, but also notes that "The Clock setup really depends upon the context of the situation overall and the specifics of what you want and what Sauron doesn't want to give up." In the context of this thread, this is what I was particularly hoping to discuss.

Genre conventions and established fiction. Declaring an action to convert the editor to a loyal compatriot, for instance violates genre conventions -- such things are in the genre of romance, not the gritty scrabble of the criminal underworld. However, it still could be done, because it's possible, but that's going to be a process, not a single action.