Social Skills Questions

[Wrathbone]

1) Seduction as described is used to get information or persuade action. But how would you seduce someone in the classic sense? You don't want anything, you just want to bed the target? Similarly, is there a way to make people like/love you, gain influence, etc. (not using spells)?

2) Persuasion involves an "exchange of agreements" and stressing that it's in the target's best interests. Should this skill usually involve the character giving up something as well? Give something to get something, with the target thinking it's a fair exchange?

3a) Duel of Wits is very cool, but how do you handle it when a Dueler makes a proposal that is not 100% relevant or in context? The rules state that the audience will pretty much go along with what the winner of the DoW suggests.

For example, the court jester decides he wants to persuade the king (who has a serious demeanor trait) to do a silly dance with him. The steward engages in a DoW with him, as he feels this is silly and beneath the king's dignity. The jester wins, and now the king must do a silly dance? This doesn't seem right.

The same king is holding court and 2 knights approach him. Sir Bob wants the king to lead his army against Bob's enemies, the orcs. Sir Don wants the king to lead his army against troublesome bandits. They duel, there is a winner, but why should the king do either? He may have his own plans for what he wants to do with his army, there are a hundred different things he could do, he's used to making his own plans for the army, etc. This example is a little more subtle than the first. Certainly the king should help his vassals if they need help. Then again, simple knights can't decide policy. Their requests should be noted and discussed in council in context with what's going on in the kingdom at large. Just because they had a DoW, the king must decide on the winner's plan now, to the exclusion of anything else he might be considering?

3b) Same question applies for Persuasion & other social skills. Can I simply persuade someone to do something silly or out of context, or would they get helping dice or something to reflect this?

[luke]

1) Sounds like a standard test.

2) This would be a good idea, yes. (See?)

3) The GM should tell the player than his SoP isn't appropriate to the situation. Also, you can always walk away. If I were the king, I would not agree to the DoW with the jester. If the player agrees, he's bound to the results. This is awesome, because it creates conflict and sends the game in unforeseen directions.

3b) I don't understand.

[Wrathbone]

Thanks for the replies, Luke.

3) Sorry - SoP ? -standard operating procedure? I get that the king could refuse the duel & this would clear up most situations. But what if his steward argued the jester and lost? Rules state audience would be bound by this. Can an audience refuse to be bound by a duel just as an individual can walk away?

Or am I reading too much into this & it's common sense?

3b) Say my poor PC with nothing to offer walks into a weaponsmith shop and uses his B6 Persuasion to persuade the smith to give him a sword. The smith doesn't work this way, customers are supposed to pay, or what's the point (burgher values) but that B6 defeats his B3 Will. The numbers say he would give him a sword, but this goes against economics and the smith's common sense.

[jb.teller4]

3b) Same question applies for Persuasion & other social skills. Can I simply persuade someone to do something silly or out of context, or would they get helping dice or something to reflect this?

Are you asking if inappropriate or out-of-character intents should be harder to achieve than reasonable ones with social skills? So persuading a sympathetic noble to back your appeal to the king should be easier than persuading the king to stand up and do the chicken dance in the middle of the court?

I don't know the actual answer (and don't have th books on me to look it up) by my feeling is that social skills are not poor man's mind control. You might convince the king that a chicken dance would be fun, but that's not the same as him actually doing it. In mechanical terms, I'd say it was an inappropriate intent and just not allow it. Kind of like how a Duel of Wits can't happen unless both sides agree to the terms, I'd allow targets of simple persuasion and other social skills to refuse in the same way but (and this is important) I'd only do that when I thought what they were trying to do was completely inappropriate and would hurt the story. If in doubt, I'd let them roll. At my table, I'd use the simple rule that if everyone at the table was staring at that player like they were an idiot, I'd refuse (and it's happened more than once, alas).

And of course, I think penalties are reasonable to add for wacky intents for when you don't want to say no, but it shouldn't be easy.

Just my two cents as a GM who hasn't had the chance to run BW yet.

-John B.

[jb.teller4]

3) Sorry - SoP ? -standard operating procedure? I get that the king could refuse the duel & this would clear up most situations. But what if his steward argued the jester and lost? Rules state audience would be bound by this. Can an audience refuse to be bound by a duel just as an individual can walk away?

Again, I don't know the official answer, but there has to be some mechanism for the audience refusing (or more accurately, the GM refusing).

After all, if two PCs go in and argue in a court about whether every member of the audience should give all their worldy positions to the first PC or the second PC, I'd never allow it even though both PCs agree to the terms. That's an extreme example, of course, but it's to make a point.

-John B.

[jb.teller4]

3b) Say my poor PC with nothing to offer walks into a weaponsmith shop and uses his B6 Persuasion to persuade the smith to give him a sword. The smith doesn't work this way, customers are supposed to pay, or what's the point (burgher values) but that B6 defeats his B3 Will. The numbers say he would give him a sword, but this goes against economics and the smith's common sense.

I think I'd require them to use bargaining (whether simple or a DoW) and let them FoRK in Persuasion, but not let them use Persuasion straight. Of course, that's about this specific example, not the point you're trying to illustrate, but I already talked to that in an earlier post.

-John B.

[Wrathbone]

Yes JB, I'm using the example of the king as an extreme that shouldn't be allowed (I wouldn't allow this) only to say that there are shades of what most people view as reasonable requests. Maybe the same jester tries to persuade the king to dance with his daughter. This is more in line with a reasonable request, but it's still out of context as the jester has no claims on the king whatsoever (socially speaking), much less to dance with his ignoble daughter.

And I'm wondering if there is a die adjustment that takes these factors into account, both for DoW and for simple versus social tests.

As for agreeing to the DoW, I would guess that if the king could refuse the duel in the first place (as a participant), then the audience could (collectively, one or more than one) refuse to allow a party to argue a duel that would affect them.

[DarrenMantle]

I think the disconnect is coming from this:

The "Audience" in a Duel of Wits must support the outcome of a Duel of Wits - an outcome which has direct consequences for the participants. Therefore the audience is indirectly impacted. The key word is indirectly.

The audience cannot be a direct target of consequences of the Duel of Wits... that is to say, with characters A and B in a DoW and character C as an observer, Characters A and B cannot set stakes that specifically direct character C to do anything. They must set stakes that influence each other's actions, which character C would then support.

So the Jester can't set his stakes in a DoW with the Steward as making the king do something... he's arguing with the wrong person for that. The king himself must either engage in the duel of wits, or simply refuse to be engaged in debate. The Steward could argue with the stakes of making the jester leave, and if he fails he is forced to retire from the court for the evening leaving his king without his usual political buffer.

[quixoteles]

A= King on the throne; regal and dignified
B= Jester looking for participants in the chicken dance
C= his court who witness a silly little man asking the king to do something outrageous

King and Jester get into a duel of wits, and Jesters win is his beloved king in a great mood, doing the chicken dance or alternately look like a fool. I thought that Duels of wits influence public opinion. Under that Idea, even if the jester totally slams the king on the DOW, all it means is that the court all thinks that the King should do the chicken dance, not that he will. I mean what is really the intent is what I am interested in. If he's trying to humiliate him, I mean he's a Jester right? If he's really trying to pressure him into making a fool of himself, it's like Luke says; he walks away and calls the man-at-arms. But if he just wants him to have a little fun and has a dead serious trait, he can throw it in the duel of wits. And even then he can still walk away if he's losing, which is not abnormal of him if he so serious, but if someone is playing a jester or the king, then that's good character development whether he wins or not unless your really serious about the whole Gothic-tone in a setting and then people shouldn't play Jesters, or alternately if they are the king should hire a jJester that is more like Stephen Colbert than Groucho Marx.

[DarrenMantle]

A= King on the throne; regal and dignified
B= Jester looking for participants in the chicken dance
C= his court who witness a silly little man asking the king to do something outrageous

King and Jester get into a duel of wits, and Jesters win is his beloved king in a great mood, doing the chicken dance or alternately look like a fool. I thought that Duels of wits influence public opinion. Under that Idea, even if the jester totally slams the king on the DOW, all it means is that the court all thinks that the King should do the chicken dance, not that he will. I mean what is really the intent is what I am interested in. If he's trying to humiliate him, I mean he's a Jester right? If he's really trying to pressure him into making a fool of himself, it's like Luke says; he walks away and calls the man-at-arms. But if he just wants him to have a little fun and has a dead serious trait, he can throw it in the duel of wits. And even then he can still walk away if he's losing, which is not abnormal of him if he so serious, but if someone is playing a jester or the king, then that's good character development whether he wins or not unless your really serious about the whole Gothic-tone in a setting and then people shouldn't play Jesters, or alternately if they are the king should hire a jJester that is more like Stephen Colbert than Groucho Marx.

Actually by my reading in this exact scenario the king would have to dance like a chicken... he agreed to the dual of wits, he agreed to the stakes. Once that's set the outcome does determine behavior, though not necessarily thought. If the king just outright wanted to avoid the situation, he refuses debate at the outset. He could escalate to violence, but based on the stakes doing so would itself make him look exceptionally foolish.

[jb.teller4]

I think the disconnect is coming from this:

The "Audience" in a Duel of Wits must support the outcome of a Duel of Wits - an outcome which has direct consequences for the participants. Therefore the audience is indirectly impacted. The key word is indirectly.

The audience cannot be a direct target of consequences of the Duel of Wits... that is to say, with characters A and B in a DoW and character C as an observer, Characters A and B cannot set stakes that specifically direct character C to do anything. They must set stakes that influence each other's actions, which character C would then support.

So the Jester can't set his stakes in a DoW with the Steward as making the king do something... he's arguing with the wrong person for that. The king himself must either engage in the duel of wits, or simply refuse to be engaged in debate. The Steward could argue with the stakes of making the jester leave, and if he fails he is forced to retire from the court for the evening leaving his king without his usual political buffer.

That makes sense.

And I like that in the example it makes the steward act as a buffer that has to be gotten through first, but that this conflict is meaningful and rewarding in it's own right.

-John B.

[stormsweeper]

Yes JB, I'm using the example of the king as an extreme that shouldn't be allowed (I wouldn't allow this) only to say that there are shades of what most people view as reasonable requests.

You're not going to get great results by trying to understand the rules as they apply to flawed scenarios. In most games, this situation would not be appropriate for tests of any sort. It's the GM's job to make that call. If for some reason he did want to allow it, it's almost certainly not appropriate for a Duel of Wits, since there's nothing really at stake from one side.

For the most part, though, just read what DarrenMantle has posted here.

[Wrathbone]

Thanks, Stormsweeper. I did read DarrenMantle and I actually prefer the rules this way, with DoW between 2 characters. For some reason I always interpreted the rules as more of an oratory thing to sway an audience.

[Wrathbone]

I understand your points & accept, but having reread the chapter on DoW, I think it's written a little unclearly (giving the impression the audience is the main one to be influenced).

If you just read the DoW In Brief, it's a lot clearer. The whole first part of the chapter, with the elven ambassador & dwarven seneschal, sounds like they're trying to influence the court.

DarrenMantle said: "The audience cannot be a direct target of consequences of the Duel of Wits... that is to say, with characters A and B in a DoW and character C as an observer, Characters A and B cannot set stakes that specifically direct character C to do anything. They must set stakes that influence each other's actions, which character C would then support."

But the book says (p. 103): "These mechanics often refer to audience reaction. This is the true benefit of winning. Rarely is the opponent convinced of the merits of the argument, but all those around him now see the advantages clearly displayed against the fallacy of the loser's assumptions: The ambassador wins his argument against the seneschal. Even so, the seneschal is still against joining the alliance. However, now the prince has heard both sides. He sees merit in the ambassador's plans. The prince, as the audience, agrees to the winning proposal - in fact he must.

And from the first 2 pages of the chapter: "The purpose in such a duel is not to reveal the truth, but to put forth your argument in the best lightwhile dismantling your opponent's position - and to convince the audience that you have struck on the truth..." and "The Duel of Wits is designed to simulate debate and argument: A speaker convinces an argument of the merits of his point. It is not designed to change a single character's or player's opinion. While this is possible, of course, it is not the goal."

Again, it seems like most players use DoW for debates between 2 characters, and this makes a lot more sense. But the rules as written suggest to me that it's more about the audience. And if it's not then the example given is the worst one in the world because it basically says what I said at the beginnig of the post and everyone says is wrong, namely that 2 characters can argue a point and the audience is bound by the winner's point. The example says that the prince "must agree to the winning proposal", thus bringing his nation to war over a Duel of Wits in which he wasn't even a part.

[luke]

Thanks for the replies, Luke.

3) Sorry - SoP ? -standard operating procedure? I get that the king could refuse the duel & this would clear up most situations. But what if his steward argued the jester and lost? Rules state audience would be bound by this. Can an audience refuse to be bound by a duel just as an individual can walk away?

Or am I reading too much into this & it's common sense?

3b) Say my poor PC with nothing to offer walks into a weaponsmith shop and uses his B6 Persuasion to persuade the smith to give him a sword. The smith doesn't work this way, customers are supposed to pay, or what's the point (burgher values) but that B6 defeats his B3 Will. The numbers say he would give him a sword, but this goes against economics and the smith's common sense.

3a Statement of Purpose. If the duel is accepted, everyone is bound to the results.

3b You have to stick with fundamentals: Intent and Task. This is where the GM steps in and says, "Your task is not appropriate to your intent."

-L

[Fourth Horseman]

Italian chicken dance aside ... its always been a little mystical to me when a straight up persuasion test is appropriate and when it should move to DoW. Is this something completely within the discretion of the GM or is there a bright-line rule in the books?

[Wrathbone]

DarrenMantle said: "The audience cannot be a direct target of consequences of the Duel of Wits... that is to say, with characters A and B in a DoW and character C as an observer, Characters A and B cannot set stakes that specifically direct character C to do anything. They must set stakes that influence each other's actions, which character C would then support."

Okay, I get that a DoW primarily affects the 2 characters involved, which the audience merely supports.

But if the audience is going to "support the decision" arrived at during DoW, isn't the winner actually forcing the actions of both his opponent & the audience?

Darren says that the 2 characters "cannot set stakes that specifically direct character C (audience) to do anything. They must set stakes that influence each other's actions, which character C would then support."

This seems contradictory to me. On the one hand they don't have to do anything; on the other, they're bound to support the decision. Which is it? This can have pretty powerful consequences (dwarven prince example) if the audience must support the terms agreed to by characters A & B.

Please forgive me if I'm beating this to death; I get most of the other rules, this one's just eluding me and it seems like such a cool mechanic I want to get it.

[Berandor]

If the king allows his advisor to argue with the Jester, then he is committed to the DoW. If the king doesn't say up front, "talk all you want, I won't dance", the yes, he must dance. He agreed to it. Or... he escalates and challenges the Jester to a duel? No, the king, if he is as serious as you say, then he is serious about his commitments, too :)

To me, Persuasion is a little like the bloody versus test. Use in a pinch.

[jchokey]

Wrathbone:

You are not beating a dead horse here-- not at all. What you are doing (IMHO) is running up against the fact that-- while DOW is an extremely powerful *and* extremely cool and fun mechanic-- it is not quite as well explained in terms of procedural clarity as all might like. My current BW campaign is winding up (1 more session left), but we had to spend *many* *many* *many back and forth e-mails (land spend lots and lots of time reading here on the forum) in order to make sense of the very issues you are asking about. Eventually, I think, we did all feel like we got a handle on what DOW was about-- and it did make sense to us-- but it really took a lot of working out.

For the next time I run a BW game-- at least for other newbies, I am going to create a "DOW explained" handout or something, that tries to summarize how it is supposed to work in clear and concise way that addresses the kinds of questions we had-- and that you're having now. (If/when I do draft it, I'll post it to the wiki if there's interest).

For now, here are my thoughts on the issues involved in your question






Okay, I get that a DoW primarily affects the 2 characters involved, which the audience merely supports. But if the audience is going to "support the decision" arrived at during DoW, isn't the winner actually forcing the actions of both his opponent & the audience?

First things first, I think it's important to note that DOWs can occur in two forms, although an example of only one is provided in the book.

On the one hand, you can have situations where two characters (the duellers) are seeking to persuade a third party audience to act in a certain way. You can also have a situation where two characters are seeking to persuade each other to a certain action. (In such a case, they are both "the audience").

This former example is the one that is given in the book-- and is the one you're asking about. This is the example where the diplomat and courtier are both seeking to persuade the king either to declare war-- or to refrain from it). There are other examples in which this might occur as well. For instance, two disputants in a court might seek to persuade the judge to rule in different ways, etc. Or, two orators might be trying to persade a crowd to act differently (one wants them to disperse, the other seeks to incite them to riot.) The example you give, of the king's steward arguing with the jester about whether the king would do a silly dance, is another.

In these situations, where there is a third party "audience", it is not only the players of two "duellists" who must agree to the stakes ("If my character wins, the audience does X, if yours wins, the audience does Y"). The player of the *AUDIENCE* must agree to BOTH sets of stakes as well. (In many cases, this will be the GM, although it could conceivably be another player.)

So, just as you have to have agreement by the players of the two disputants that they will accept the others stakes, so to does the player of the *AUDIENCE* have to agree to abide by the stakes. If the player of the audience (be it a king, a judge, a mob, or whatever) feels that either of the proposed stakes are not something that the audience could possibly be argued, teased, wheedled, cajoled, browbeaten, harangued, inspired, or rationally persuaded into doing, then the audience effectively 'refuses' the duel... and no duel occurs, at least not in the mechanical sense. (The two duellers could still argue it for the sake of in-game color, but nothing is actually at stake since the audience has already made it clear that they won't agree to the stakes.)

To go back to the example you gave: Where the steward and the jester are debating whether the king should dance a silly dance, here is how it should be done (IMHO). The player of the jester proposes his stakes: "If I beat you, the king will do a silly dance." The player of the steward counterproposes, "If I beat you in the DOW, you will apologize to his majesty for insulting his dignity and will never make such a request again!" (or somethign like that). These stakes are acceptable to both of the duelling players... but we *STILL* need to get agreement from the player of the king, who is the audience.

So, let's say the king is an NPC and I'm the GM. How would I approach this? I would probably say that, although the king is certainly concerned with his dignity, and does not want to do a silly dance... and would be inclined against it, it is not *inconceivable to me* that, under the right circumstances, he might be persuaded by the barbs of his jester to do so, at least in the right setting. The question would then be: Are the immediate circumstances such that I can imagine the king being persuaded to do this-- albeit grudingly. For instance: Are we at a feast? Is it a celebration day? Is he in a particuarly cheery mood? Iso, then yes, I'd probably have him agree to the stakes... although, even then... I would consider giving the steward advantage dice on the BOA (and maybe even on all his rolls with in the DOA, to reflect the fact that it's really an uphill battle to persuade the king to do this.)

By contrast, if this were the middle of a battle, or in tense diplomatic negotatiosn, or in the midst of a religious service... or that the king was just such a dour individual that he would *never* agree to such a dance, I would simply just say, "No, the king will not be persuaded to do a silly dance now." You can have your PCs dispute about it for fun and color, but regardless of what you say, he's *not* going to change his mind-- it's just not appropriate for the situation and the character.





Darren says that the 2 characters "cannot set stakes that specifically direct character C (audience) to do anything. They must set stakes that influence each other's actions, which character C would then support."

This seems contradictory to me. On the one hand they don't have to do anything; on the other, they're bound to support the decision. Which is it?

If the two duellists are seeking to influence a third-party audience to take a certain action-- and the player of that third party is willing to go along with those stakes, then yes, the two duellists absolutely can influence a third-party audience.

However, if, even before the DOW begins, the player (which, again, might well be the GM) of the audience says, "No way is the king/the judge/the mob going to go along with your stakes-- not even the best possible argument/appeal/pleading could him/them do what your asking, at least not now..." then you're in a situation in which the audience hasn't agreed to the DOW, and therefore, in mechanical/binding results terms, no DOW occurs.

[Wrathbone]

Thanks jchokey, this is exactly what I was looking for & this makes sense. Can this be considered "canon" BW (did this come from BWHQ) or more of houserules you came up with?

By the way, congrats on your move.

[jchokey]

Similarly, is there a way to make people like/love you, gain influence, etc. (not using spells)?

I don't believe there's a specific skill for that, although I think almost any social skill *could* be used for this, Persuasion, Seduction, Etiquette, Soothing Platitudes, etc.

Keep in mind that the skills represent the question of how you achieve your intent-- not the intent itself. For instance, let's say that there's a character you want to befriend.. not necessarily because you want him/her to do something, but you basically just want to gain his/her trust. Well, "gaining his trust" or "becoming his friend" is your intent. How you gain that trust determines the social skill you use.... If none of the existing skills seem appropriate for the method you want to use, I suppose you could always just do a straight Will test.... or invent some new skill, like "Small Talk" or "Witty Conversation" or something like that.

[jchokey]

Thanks jchokey, this is exactly what I was looking for & this makes sense. Can this be considered "canon" BW (did this come from BWHQ) or more of houserules you came up with?

It did *not* come verbatim from BWHQ, but it does reflect a summary of my understanding of the issue, as it was been explained in many threads here, by folks at BWHQ. Still, since it did not come from the mouth of BWHQ, I guess it has be considered "a house interpretation" rather than 'canon'.

[jchokey]

I don't believe there's a specific skill for that, although I think almost any social skill *could* be used for this, Persuasion, Seduction, Etiquette, Soothing Platitudes, etc.

Another quick thought before the end of my lunch hour:

Another way to approach this could be to use.... Circles! That's right-- let's say there's a specific character, you want to befriend or make like you. You could circle him/her up using the circles rules, but add specific dispositions-- as requirements (which increase the obstacle).

For example, you could specify that you find the character "Feeling lonely, and looking for a drinking companion". Or even: "In a trusting and friendly mood." Or even "In love with me". It's a somewhat more radical approach to using Circles than just "finding a person of type X or Y", but I think it is supported by the rules.

[Wrathbone]

jchokey said: "It did *not* come verbatim from BWHQ, but it does reflect a summary of my understanding of the issue, as it was been explained in many threads here, by folks at BWHQ. Still, since it did not come from the mouth of BWHQ, I guess it has be considered "a house interpretation" rather than 'canon'."

That's close enough to canon for me, as long as it makes sense. I've learned to hate the word canon (you can probably guess why).

[jchokey]

I've learned to hate the word canon (you can probably guess why).

LOL.

[Berandor]

...because people always write it with two "n"?

[zabieru]

...because people always write it with two "n"?

"Canon?"

[stormsweeper]

jchokey has it. Consent is needed from the participants to abide by the results. There's not really two cases here - the dispute is between two sides and both need to agree to the duel.

He's also right about the use of disposition in Circles tests. We use it all the time.

[stormsweeper]

Italian chicken dance aside ... its always been a little mystical to me when a straight up persuasion test is appropriate and when it should move to DoW. Is this something completely within the discretion of the GM or is there a bright-line rule in the books?

Generally, the issue should be "significant" to the game, but it is left to the GM's discretion. In practice, if I can't think of a good counter-argument for the NPC, I'll call for a straight up test with bonuses and penalties as seem fitting.

[jchokey]

jchokey has it. Consent is needed from the participants to abide by the results. There's not really two cases here - the dispute is between two sides and both need to agree to the duel.

On an abstract level, that's true, there aren't two cases... it's just a situation where "all parties to be bound by the results of the DoW must have agreed to its terms" including not only the duellists but also (if applicable) any third parties.

In practice, however, I think it is helpful to conceptualize/explain the DoW by acknowledging that a situation where two parties are only trying to influence the other (i.e. they are the only two affected) is a bit different-- at least in practice-- than one where two parties are trying to influence a third party, if only because it's not just "between two sides and both need to agree"-- it's between two sides and they-- and those folks to be influenced-- must *all* agree.

[Aramis]

Doesn't this boil down to a couple of the premises of Burning Wheel:
1) The stakes must be set before hand and agreed to
2) once the dice fly, everyone abides by the roll

So, if the audience doesn't interject before hand, are they not implicitly agreeing to abide by the rolls?

[BobSlaughter]

Italian chicken dance aside ... its always been a little mystical to me when a straight up persuasion test is appropriate and when it should move to DoW. Is this something completely within the discretion of the GM or is there a bright-line rule in the books?

My view:

1) A versus test is for those things the player/character is not heavily invested in. It comes down to one roll. BAM! Done! And either you get your intent, or you get ... something else, up to the GM. (Complications are always more interesting than simple failures).

2) In a Duel of Wits, it takes more time to set up, so the player/character should be more invested in the outcome. Also, the player has more control over the outcome, given the DoW mechanics of tactical choice. Also, due to the Compromise rule, the player also has more control over the outcome if there is a failure.

I've always seen it as a mutual choice depending how much clock-time the players want to spend on this.

It's similar to the choice of Fight! or Bloody Versus. Use Bloody Versus for the no-name door-guards, use Fight! for the duel with the Usurping Bastard Son and his henchmen on the steps of the throne.