Over the last few weeks, we’ve been examining how to create smoother social conflict in roleplaying games by moving such conflict from the player arena to the character arena. In the first article, we examined four key notions in achieving this: setting aside ego, limiting conversation participants, stating intent for dialogue, and learning when to stop. We then explored using the “cat and mouse” extended contest from Dresden Files RPG in a social conflict.

You shouldnt do that with so many people watching us! by Tambako the Jaguar, on Flickr

The “cat and mouse” style contest works quite well when one party clearly has an upper hand. But what of the arguments where both sides are more evenly matched? Today’s article takes the concepts behind the “chase” mechanics from both Fate and Pathfinder and adapts them for an in-game argument. Like the other articles of this series, it will conclude with an example of this mechanic in play.

Normally in our own attempt to combat gamer attention disorder, we save links for the footer, but it’s pretty important that you have a grasp of Pathfinder’s Chase mechanic to understand this article, so we won’t take it personally if you take a moment to read more about them.

Background and Assumptions

At their core, arguments have two parties (party A and party B) with mutually incompatible points of view and a need to convince the opposite party of the validity of a belief. “Convincing” can range from merely defending one’s right to hold a viewpoint to forcing a life-or-death decision about whether to change one’s mind.

Engineer-types like to believe that logic rules the day, but as anyone whose tried to navigate the murky waters of a spousal disagreement knows, emotion generally decides the “victor” of such contests. Still, arguments are mixed from logic, humor, intimidation, knowledge, deceit, conviction, empathy, and many other mental and social skills.

In an argument, one party desperately tries to gain an advantage over the other. When they do, they use one of their best “argumentative” skills to set a trap for the other party. The other party must somehow work through or avoid the trap, and if they are lucky, get ahead of their opponent to lay some traps of their own.

Finally, astute readers may feel like this mechanic has characters debating against themselves. I again point to real-life arguments. One of the more baffling things we do is make a case, poke a hole in it, then throw the carcass of that argument at our partner while we come up with some more BS to generate. Like I said, logic doesn’t have much place in winning a debate.

The Argumentative Chase

The chase mechanic of Pathfinder works a lot like this. In short, the game master sets a series of obstacles which can be overcome by players using a narrow range of skills. For each “step” of the chase, the player always has at least two obstacles to choose from, which means they can use different skills to overcome these.

The argumentative chase is similar; however, setting the obstacles is no longer the sole domain of the GM. Instead, the parties involved in the chase have some opportunity to the obstacles for each other. Here’s how it works.

Objective

Characters will “race” in a circular pattern around a map as they try to “lap” the other participant. The map should be physically represented using hand-drawn squares or sheets of paper–for the rest of these rules, we’ll refer to one such space on the map as a “tile.” Each tile contains up to two argument “obstacles;” characters must best at least one of these obstacles to move forward, and can choose to try to tackle both to move across more tiles.

Choose a Mediator

If the GM is not a participant in the argument, she should mediate. If the argument is between a PC and a GM-run NPC, then another player should be selected to mediate. The mediator basically wears the GM’s hat insofar as adjudication goes for the duration of the contest. The mediator also takes on the role of setting some of the obstacles based on the arguments that have transpired so far.

Setup

Have players involved agree on a “lead” required for victory (in the style of a Fate chase), and draw a number of tiles, arrayed in a circular pattern, equal to this lead. For example, if the parties agree to use a five-point lead argument, a series of five boxes is sufficient. You’ll be using sticky notes to represent argument obstacles, so make sure each tile is large enough to accommodate two sticky notes. The tiles will be empty at the start of the argument, so the mediator should arbitrarily choose a start tile, and place tokens in that tile to represent each player.

Initiative

Choose an appropriate skill or story justification to decide who goes first. For instance, in Fate games, “empathy” is a good skill (even if one is not the instigator of an argument, having a high empathy can tell you if someone is trying to lead you into an argument). Games that lack this skill should rely on “who started it,” which is to say, who escalated a conversation into something that needs mechanics to resolve.

Opening Salvo

Starting with whoever wins initiative, each party states the direction of their desired outcome of the argument, the “brief” of the content of their argument, and the two base skills they will rely on to make their own arguments. Needless to say, these skills ought to be primarily social: if one is trying to “sleight of hands” his way into winning the argument, you’re probably dealing with a different type of conflict.

Finally, each player makes their opening argument. This is done by choosing one of the two base skills used in the argument. The player makes a skill check using that skill, writing down both the name of the skill and the result of their check at the top of a sticky note. They also write on the same sticky note a few words representing the idea of the argument. These two sticky notes go on the next tile in sequence.

For example, say we’re running Pathfinder for an argument on whether to talk to the duke or the baron about a quest. I chose “Intimidate” and “Deceit” as my base skills, while Bryan picked “Diplomacy” and “Knowledge: Nobility.” I choose Intimidate for my opening salvo, and make an Intimidate check that I get a 17 on. I jot down on a sticky note “Intimidate: 17,” and also jot “I get angry when people say I’m wrong. Bryan knows it.” Bryan chooses “Knowledge: Nobility,” rolls a 23, and jots “Knowledge (Nobility): 23; The baron is of a bloodline of an ancient hero, he’ll be more sympathetic to our cause.” Both sticky notes go on the tile where the tokens are.

Moving Across the Tiles

On a player’s turn, their character tries to move forward in the argument by overcoming an obstacle currently on their tile. Overcoming an obstacle means using a skill check (the mediator decides what is reasonable) to match the difficulty written at the top of the obstacle.

At the player’s discretion, they may challenge only one obstacle, move ahead two tiles on a success or only one tile on a failure, or they may challenge both obstacles to move ahead three tiles. In the latter case, failing either obstacle means the character does not move ahead in the argument, and must remain on the current tile to face the same argument obstacles again next turn.

Any time an obstacle is overcome, the sticky note gets turned sideways, and the difficulty to overcome that argument decreases by a step. (In Pathfinder, a “step” drops the DC by 5; in Fate, the number of shifts required to beat the obstacle drops by 1)

Populating Further Obstacles

At the beginning of every round (or exchange or whatever your system calls the set of each players’ turns), look at the tiles where character tokens currently reside. If there are fewer than two arguments on any of these tiles, the tile must be populated.

Going in initiative order, players make a choice. Either the player may look across the “argument map” for obstacles that have not yet been overcome and carry one forward to their current tile, or they may ask their opponent to generate an argument using one of the two base skills. Any as-yet-overcome obstacle can be carried forward as long as it is not in a tile currently occupied by a token.

If there are still fewer than two obstacles on the current tile, the mediator should generate obstacles until there are two on every tile with a token on it, using a bonus to the rolls equal to the space between the lead and last token and using her best wisdom to set appropriate skills.

Winning

To “win,” one character must “lap” the other character on the argument map. In other words, if a character beats an obstacle and moves forward into or past the tile where the other character’s token resides, that character wins the argument. Based on the principle of stating intent before social conflict, this should present a clear direction for the story to move.

Example of a Chase-Style Argument

Gertrude the GM is running a vampire-hunting fantasy game for Malec the Mage, Brenda the Bard, Rhonda the Rogue, and Fred the Fighter. The players have decided to hunt down Ephraim the Emo-Vampire (see last week’s article for notes on how they came to this decision!). They have tracked down Ephraim, and the four heroes are currently locked in mortal combat with the vampire. Malec knows that they need Ephraim alive to help them hunt down a greater evil; Fred wants to kill him. So, in addition to the physical combat that all five players are running, there is a side conflict representing the social conflict between Fred and Malec.

Gertrude: Top of round 3. Fred and Malec, you’ve been arguing for the last three turns about whether to kill this guy. I don’t think you’re going to be happy to let the dice decide based on whose turn it is when it comes time to deliver the killing blow. Shall we run a side conflict to this main combat to represent a social argument “chase” to decide who wins this spat? Malec nods.

Fred: Sure, but what happens if the fight is over before the social conflict is resolved?

Gertrude: Don’t worry about it–Ephraim will be on his knees as you argue about what to do with him. If he tries anything, I’ll give you appropriate chances to respond.

Malec: OK, let’s talk intent. If I win the argument, we’ll do everything we can to leave Ephraim alive during combat, and I’m going to argue that we let him live even after combat (assuming we win.) And if I lose, Fred, I’m OK with the final attack of combat being a killing blow.

Gertrude: Fred, you good with that? Fred nods his assent. Let’s use five tiles for this argument. Gertrude draws five tiles along the side of the game board; ideally, these would be in a circle, but bear with me in imagining that the right border of Tile 5 connects with the left border of Tile 1.

The Argument Map

Gertrude: Fred, Malec, you both need to pick the base skills for this challenge, and make your opening arguments. Since both of you have zero empathy skill ranks, we’re going to simply use the combat’s initiative order to decide who goes first in the social conflict. So, Fred, you’ve got initiative.

Fred: I’m a fighter, so I guess I’ll use Intimidate as one of my base skills. And I want to kill Ephraim because I think he had my fiancee killed, so I supposed Conviction is the best choice for the other skill. I’ll use that for my opening argument, which sounds something like, “My name is Fred the Fighter. You killed my fiancee. Prepare to die.” Fred gets a +4 Conviction roll, and writes “Conviction +4; My name is Fred the Fighter, you killed my fiancee, prepare to die” on a sticky note and places it on tile 1.

Malec: I’m trying to convince Fred that he’s been deceived, so I’ll use Empathy as a base skill, even though it sucks. Since Malec is erudite, I want to use his scholarship as the other base skill–this represents me trying to use reason to compel Fred. For an opening argument, Malec rolls Scholarship and writes, “Scholarship +5; Heroditus wrote that the best intelligence comes from a living prisoner.”

The argument map, after the opening salvo

Gertrude: OK, Fred, you’re first.

Fred: Hmm, I stand a better chance beating my own Conviction argument, but I don’t want to weaken it, so I’ll go after the scholarship argument. Can I use my Conviction to defend against it? Basically, I’m so focused on my goal that I don’t care what reason says. Gertrude agrees that this seems fair, and Fred rolls a +5 on Conviction to move ahead one. The “Scholarship” argument is turned sideways to represent that it’s been dealt with once, and its difficulty drops to +4.

Malec: I’m going to try to take on both arguments to move ahead three tiles. My defense sounds something like, “I’m Malec the Mage, and I don’t care who you are. And we can kill him or let him live, but we need to know what he knows.” Malec rolls an Intimidate against Fred, because that seems to best match the tenor of his counter argument, and he rolls a Rapport against his own Scholarship. He only gets a +1 on Intimidate and a +2 on Rapport, which isn’t sufficient to beat the +4 Scholarship, so Malec doesn’t move.

The argument map, after the first round

Gertrude: Top of the second round. Fred, there aren’t any obstacles on your square, so you can either pull forward your “Fred the Fighter” obstacle that hasn’t been overcome, or let Malec make a new argument. In either case, I’ll be supplying the other argument.

Fred: I want to leave the “Fred the Fighter” obstacle on Malec, so Malec, why don’t you generate a new argument?

Malec: OK, since I’m still stuck on square 1, I’ll try a different tack. Using empathy, I’ll say, “I know you want revenge, but more people will get hurt if we don’t stop Igor.” Malec rolls a +2 on Empathy.

Gertrude: For the other argument, I’m going to set a Rapport obstacle that represents how you two have to guard your words to avoid giving Ephraim an edge. I get a +1 on this roll, since there is one square between Fred and Malec. Gertrude rolls a Rapport +2. Fred, your turn.

Fred: Hmm, either way, I’ve gotta beat a +2. Can I use Intimidate against the “Guard your Words” obstacle? Gertrude considers for a moment, then assents. Fred glances uncaringly at Ephraim and says, “I don’t care what the mage says, I’m going to stake you.” Fred rolls a +1 Intimidate, so only gets to move ahead one tile.

Malec: I’ve gotta make up some ground. I’m going to challenge my own “Living prisoner” argument, saying “Fred, you can torture him for all I care; let’s just not kill him now.” Malec rolls a +3, and decides to use a Fate point to bring that to a +5 and move head two squares.

The argument map, after the second round

Gertrude: Top of the third round. You’re both on a blank tile. Fred, you have initiative, so you can carry forward an old argument or as Malec to make you a new one. Malec, you’ll then have a chance to carry forward an old one or have Fred make a new one for you.

Fred: I’ll take on the Guard your Words again with the same strategy, so I’ll pull that forward.

Malec: Hmm.. Gertrude, go ahead and make a new one, since you’ll get a +0 to your roll because Fred and I are on the same tile.

Gertrude: Remember, Fred gets to use that, too. Hmm, let’s see… neither of you have really talked about your own ethics in killing someone in combat like this, so let’s set this one as Empathy, using “Aren’t We Heroes?” as the argument. Gertrude rolls a -1 on this.

Fred: I’ll take on both, using Intimidate against “guard your words,” and heck, if you’ll allow it, Intimidate against “Aren’t We Heroes” by saying “I’ll burn in hell if it means I get to kill Ephraim.” Gertrude nods, and Fred rolls a +3 on his first Intimidate, but a terrible -2 on his second! He’s stuck, and worse yet, “Guard your Words” is rotated since he beat it.

Malec: So, I’ve gotta beat a +1 and a -1? I’ll take on both; a Rapport against “guard your words” to represent the care I’m taking, and an Empathy to emphasize “Aren’t We Heroes?” Malec rolls a +3 and +4, so beats both and moves ahead 3 tiles.

The argument map, after the third round

Gertrude: Fourth round, you’re both in tiles with two arguments, so Fred, go for it!

Fred: I gotta make up ground. I’m going to try to take on both again, and rely on my trusty old Intimidate for both. Fred rolls a -2 on the first roll, and so doesn’t move.  I gotta get new dice.

Malec: I’ll take on my own Scholarship argument again, since it’s been beaten once. I’ll throw out some other quote from an ancient philosophy of war writer who even Fred has heard of to emphasize why he should listen to the wizard. Malec rolls a Scholarship +4, and so moves ahead 2 tiles to tile #3. He’s now lapped Fred and won the argument!

Gertrude: Congratulations, Malec won! So, we’re going to finish up the combat, and as per the agreement beforehand, you’re going to try to take him alive.

Links

• Better Social Conflict in Roleplaying Games
• Better Social Conflict part 2: Cat and Mouse Mechanics for Character Conflict
• Avoiding Interrogation and Torture in Roleplaying Games

Do you have experience using chase-like mechanics for social conflicts? Ever debated the fate of a vampire in front of him? Tell us about it in the comments!

Print PDF

0saves

Save

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.