Conversation

Having cleared my thoughts of misgivings, let's tackle the matter of conversation.

Let us set the scene.  A group of players in the harbour of a small town wishes to obtain passage across the bay to reach the tip of a difficult peninsula that would be hard to access by land.  There are no official passenger boats, only working boats, so some negotiation will be necessary to convince an otherwise busy captain to take the party onboard and deviate from the intended course to drop them off where they wish to go.  Additionally, the players would like to get back, so they'll need to arrange a rendezvous with the same captain.  For this, they'll need to know: a) that the captain can be trusted; b) what a fair price would be; c) how long the trip will be; d) what the shore is like across the bay; and e) particulars like how much space can the captain offer, both going out and coming back, for equipment, food and, ultimately, treasure.

None of the party happen to have come from sailors or indeed any seagoing background; however, the druid's family were woodcutters, so at least hard labour is well understood.  Moreover, the druid is human, like the fishing folk here, and is from around the area, so that there is a shared accent.  Finally the druid understands the wild and has a little sage knowledge of the sea; so these things together are presented to the DM and the DM agrees, that's good enough to get a charisma check.  The druid succeeds and the prospective captain, whose boat seems large enough, agrees to climb out of his boat and onto the dock, to chat with the druid.

In ordinary D&D, the remainder of this discussion would be carried out as pure role-play.  Most likely, the DM would want the players to succeed, so they could get out to the intended place of adventure, the very purpose for which tonight's session was begun.  By far, most DMs would contend that there is no reason to delay the party or deny the party passage, so the matter is simply sewn up.  The druid is given a price, the players agree, they climb on board and five minutes later they're told the captain has dropped them off on the desired shore and that they'll be picked up, two days later.

But suppose we ignore such red carpet treatment and presume the world is not deliberately designed to revolve around the players' needs.  Instead, let's suppose that this is as difficult an obstacle to overcome as any puzzle inside a dungeon would be ~ only in this case, the puzzle is to sort out how to talk to the captain in such a manner that the player can get what's wanted, as we've listed.  Suppose there's a real possibility that this captain, and indeed all the captains in the marina (once the water is muddied by a bad interaction), to refuse to grant passage, forcing the players to adopt the difficult overland route.

Let us further suppose that charisma will play a part in this dialogue ~ and that, having opened the conversation, the druid and the captain will talk about things.  Since the things discussed will determine success or failure, it stands to reason that the same weight must be given to these things that we would give to the success of discovering and removing a trap, forcing our way through a stuck door or figuring out how six levers ought to be pulled in order to turn off the rushing water from an aperture so that it can be entered.

Very well.  What does conversation consist of, in concept rather than in precise words?  If I turn to wikipedia, I find that we have small talk, banter, questioning, informing and discussion of ideas, facts, other people and oneself.

The druid will want to inform the captain about who he is and about the members of the party, their purpose, their time line and their willingness to be flexible.  The druid will want to question the captain about cost, space, time of departure, willingness to take a contract and one or two personal questions to get a sense of trust.  And on the side the druid will want to make small talk, to set the captain at ease, and banter a bit to perhaps put a smile on the captain's face, and perhaps gossip or make observations that will assure the captain that the druid is a good fellow with shared perspectives and motives.

Put that way, it is plain to see that charisma is strongly represented in banter, small talk and light discussion.

Okay.

Let's view what follows as a thought experiment and not necessarily a rule set.  The very worst proposal at this point would be a system supported by numerous die rolls, where the druid rolls and the captain rolls and matters are resolved thus.  At the same time, we already have a system where there are virtually no die rolls; the player role-plays freely, with the player's charisma hardly mattering at all, while the DM pretends for a while that the captain isn't willing to take them, gruffly making complaints, until ultimately agreeing because, as we've said, this is what the DM wants too.  For my money, this is a very annoying process, particularly the pretend-we-won't-but-ultimately-we-will trope.

A desirable system will allow the players to improvise what they say, but will apply real weight to the consequences of their decisions.  For example, choosing to make small talk, and how that small talk is made, will have a measurable effect, and not be thirty seconds of life that no one at the table will get back.  At the same time, however, this measurable effect has to be something the player can manage, that isn't a random shit-show of "Oops, I rolled a 2, now he hates me."  How can we do that?

Let's put you in the druid's shoes.  Consider your choices as you are walking along the dock to speak with your selected captain.  He's directing the stowing of lobster traps aboard his schooner by his mates, smoking a pipe.  We might as well have all the cliches.

Are you going to open with a question?  Or small talk.  Are you going to introduce yourself, or make a random observation about the harbour.  Suppose I tell you that there is a right answer here and a wrong answer.  Would that surprise you?

On the whole, people don't like to be questioned, particularly by strangers; making an observation can be taken as patronizing; and talking about yourself can be seen as attention-seeking behaviour.  So while either of these won't likely end a conversation, they might with the wrong person.  The safer course is the make an observation or make small talk.  "Those are some fine lobster traps."  "Looks like it's going to be a nice day."  That sort of thing.

Suppose we grant this approach as giving the player "capital" ~ which is as good a word as any for what I'm proposing.  We leave it up to the DM how much capital is received, depending on the player's choice of words.  If the DM rules it as banal, the player gets 1d4 capital.  If the DM rules it as genial or thought out, the player gets 1d6.  And if the player manages something very good, even amusing, but yet in good taste, the player gets 1d8.  These rolls then take into account that the while the DM may not be amused, the captain might not be.  Even something jovial could gain the player only 1 point.

Okay, what do we use capital for?  Let me provide a clear list of the player's options:

apology ~ ask a general question ~ ask a personal question ~ banter ~ discuss objective facts ~ give an opinion ~ give information ~ small talk ~ talk about oneself ~ talk about others

I'll go easy on the definitions.  A general question concerns anything that is not directly related to the captain or the captain's life choices: for example, a question about the value of his schooner is personal, but a question about it's size isn't.  A question about the cargo or the captain's chosen profession is personal, but how much lobster he catches a day isn't.  It's a fine line.

Banter strictly describes wit (and is hard to produce, particularly if it's in good taste).  Objective facts, opinions and information refers to meaningful subjects; like things that are not meaningful are small talk.  Anything related to our agenda ~ desires, purpose, our sore feet, etc. ~ is talking about ourselves.  Talking about others refers only to people who are not present in any way.

Everything on this list is a risk except small talk.  A general question is -1 capital, as is talking about yourself.  A personal question is -3 capital.  Banter, objective facts, opinions, information and talking about others gives +1 capital if the captain agrees, and -2 capital if the captain disagrees.

And there is one other element here that isn't specific to a form of parley: giving offense.  Twice in this post I've added the qualifier, "in good taste."  Anything in bad taste, or anything that sounds like condescension, ignorance, refusal to answer, etc., can be rated as "giving offense."  And that's -1d4 capital.

Got it?

So you come out on the dock as a druid and say to the captain, "Hello, I'm Drake the Druid and I'm looking for a boat."  -1 capital.  You start with zero and so you're already in the hole.  Any time you're in the hole, you make a charisma check.  We've already agreed that you've got some in common with the captain, so your tone of voice when you introduced yourself wasn't that off, so we'll grant you your full charisma for the check (but -1 from your capital).  You fail and the captain says, "Who cares, get off my dock," in a tone that makes it pretty clear that you've already goofed.  You succeed and the captain says, "Yeah?  So tell me how that matters to me?"

Careful now.  You're still at -1 capital.  If you ask a question, it's another minus, so that's not a good idea.  You can give information, but it's up to you the player to pick words that the captain will find to his liking, or that's a stiff penalty.  Small talk is safest ~ gets you out of the hole.  But what do you actually say that sounds like small talk, when you've just been asked for information?

That's your problem.  I'm just measuring the numbers as DM.  If you sound insipid, I'll roll 1d4 and reduce your capital for giving offense.  But you realize, suddenly, that you can give an apology.  "I'm sorry, that was rude of me.  You have a fine boat.  It looks fit and trim."  This observation is bound to obtain agreement from the captain, so you gain +1 capital and you're back to zero.  No checks needed.

The captain growls, "What would you be wanting my boat for?"

Talk about yourself?  Risky.  "I was just thinking," you say, struggling to find small talk.  "It is a fine morning.  Fresh air, talks of opportunities, doesn't it?"  Hard to disagree, basically it's small talk, though not the greatest.  Roll 1d4 capital.  You get a 4.

Awesome.  You've got room to play.  You can ask a direct, non-personal question ~ hell, you can ask four of them.  Do you know the peninsula, how far is it, what's the ship's tonnage and what is the shore like over there?

But we can ask a personal question, one about the captain himself: do you take passengers?  That's -3 capital ... and for the record, ALL personal questions require a check.  But preferably not a charisma check.

A lot of you ought to recognize this.  I don't mention it much, but I did steal some from B/X in my early days playing, as I had a copy of these rules.  I used the reaction table from B/X for a few years after I finally ditched the horrible notion from AD&D.

I'm puzzled by the "roll again" result, which seems time-wasting.  My goal is to repurpose the table, anyway.  Offer refused simply means a loss of -1 or -2 capital, in addition to the question asked.  A positive answer gives a bonus of +1 or +2 capital.  "Yes, I do take passengers!  How many?"

The result of 6-8 can simply be, the captain answers the question, according to the DM's take.  A 6 might give the answer, "I never have before," with an 8 being the opposite.  "I've been known to do so."

But some of you will notice that the best result still leaves you down -1 capital overall ... whereas the worst result leaves you at -5 capital overall.  Well, to that I say, life isn't fair.  The captain is balanced against you to start; he doesn't know you, you threaten to create problems, he's risking his vessel to a bunch of strangers, whatever.  Whereas pushing you off is safer and he loses nothing he didn't have.  That's a sentiment you have to get past.  But as long as you've got positive capital, you can keep trying, keep making small talk or offering observations the captain would like.  "Surely, sir," you say, "A value of 3 g.p. for me and my four companions, plus what we can carry ourselves, would help your situation this month with regards to the harbour fees and such."

"Yeah," agrees the captain.  +2 capital, 5 total now.  Captain rolls reaction, gets a 7.  "5 g.p. each would help my books even better."

Is this the moment to close this deal?  We don't even know how far it is, yet, or if there's even a beach.  Does the captain know where we want to go?  And who says the captain isn't going to slice our throats.  Did we think about that, with our 5 points of capital?  This isn't just about closing the deal.

Afterthoughts

This may be too complicated for legitimate play ~ and I realize a fair number of DMs couldn't tell an observation or a statement of fact from small talk if their lives depended on it.  There's a lot of deconstruction going on here in a few seconds of chatter, that quite a few would find hard to manage in terms of numbers ... and, of course, there's still that pesky truth that the DM doesn't want to ditch the players here on the quay, if adventure is right across the bay.

But, as a thought experiment ... capital drops into the negatives and it's a charisma check to manage a willingness on the other person not to end the parley over a choice of words.  Whereas on the other hand, gaining capital is the player's responsibility; the player has to come up with good sentences and decide how far to press their luck with regards to opinions, ideas and hard questions.  The player who manages everything through small talk has no right to complain when the captain turns out to be a pirate.  Play it safe in a parley and risk not protecting yourself in advance.

Post Script

Let me just add that this post must seem a little strange after the bitter pace of my last one, written early this morning.  This is a part of my thinking process.  There may be things I put to paper that make me look like a raving lunatic, or reveal me as an embittered cynic ... but for all those emotional quandaries, they don't describe the whole person.

Whatever hateful natures I have broiling in me, this is part of a simmering brew of creativity and innovation, unrestrained by social mores and appropriate emotional discourse.  All that I have written this morning, ALL of it, came into my mind in the last four hours.  I got out of bed at nine having not one iota of any of this thought experiment in my head ... and yet, like a muse possessing me, I sit down and all of the above comes out, without my knowing how or why this appears so thorough and pre-planned.

I still question my posts of bitter free associations, but I can't deny that there is something in my personal creation process that demands a rampaging pillaging first, to lay the ground bare for the construction that follows after.  It astounds me as much as anyone.  These four posts have been my creating in real time, word by word, paragraph by paragraph.  I think better when I write than I do at any other time; and so, when I can't think, I settle in to write and things ... come out.  So it goes.