Site icon Melestrua's Musings

When one action isn’t enough (part 2) – Negotiations

In the previous few posts, I looked at the history of Skills in BECMI, looked at the different 5e skills in detail, and explored what skills can (and equally importantly can’t) do.

The last post introduced more complex scenarios where one action isn’t enough to resolve the situation, and considered a complex task: crossing a river. This post looks at another situation where a single check or action is insufficient: a negotiation.

A reminder of the situation:

This is a negotiation. Azedarc won’t be willing to just hand over his potion of time travel just because the PCs ask – they will need to persuade him.

When I ran this situation, I wasn’t familiar with The Angry GM’s model for interaction, but in retrospect it is a good model for describing how I approached it. Azedarc has objections which prevent him handing over the magic item, and it’s up to the PCs to counter those objections with incentives. Once the incentives balance the objections, he agrees. Score the objections from 1-5 and modify them in response to the PC actions.

So what might be Azedarc’s objections:

  1. I’ve invested in creating/obtaining this magic item – OBJECTION +1
  2. I can’t have my magic use exposed to the general populace – OBJECTION +2
  3. I don’t know these people or how trustworthy they are – OBJECTION +1
  4. I have a reputation to maintain – I can’t have people taking advantage of me – OBJECTION +1

How could the PCs proceed? Here’s how it worked in our group (this is from X2 Castle Amber).

First the PCs needed to gain an audience. They used a dual-pronged approach, mentioning their suspicions of magic use and an opportunity for Azedarc, and several of them excel in Persuasion (character skill), so they were led to an audience with Azedarc.

When the PCs gained an audience, Azedarc had several guards with him, and the party suspected him of being a pretty accomplished magic user – it was clear to them that fighting wasn’t going to be an option, and so Intimidation was out as well.

They led with saying they had heard he had a special potion which had interesting effects – not mentioning magic explicitly, but hinting at it – and they were willing to buy some.

This went part way to reassuring Azedarc about Objection 2 – they obviously are aware of the risk and willing to to be circumspect.

Azedarc countered that even if he had such a thing, it wouldn’t be for sale. What if it got into the wrong hands? They have made progress – he’s giving them information and openings.

One of them offered soup powder (running gag) … this did not go down well and bumped objection 4 up to +2. A closed response – it’s up to the party to restart things.

They had a quick discussion among themselves and then hinted they might have some items of “equivalent rarity” which Azedarc might be interested in in exchange. Creating an incentive.

Azedarc asks them to describe what they might offer. A slightly more open response.

They offer a ring which, when wearing it, you don’t feel the cold (it’s snowing here at the moment, and it never snows here).

Azedarc is interested, but wary. Objection 4 goes back down to +1. He asks to know more.

They show him their ring of warmth. He’s still interested but wary, and asks if they have any way they can prove it (objection 3).

They bring out scales of identification and place it on. It shows “ring of warmth”. (Addressing objections 3 and 4)

Azedarc goes for the potion and comes back with one which does match the description the party had been given. (He had been going to cheat them, but the scales of identification made him think, if they’re genuine, he would get caught out).

He puts it on the scales, and they indeed show “potion of time travel”. This addresses objection 3.

So objection 2 has been addressed by the fact the party are equally at risk and have been circumspect. Objection 3 has been addressed by scales of identification. Objection 4 has been addressed by the fact they’re offering an equivalent (or possibly better) in return. So we’re down to Objection 1 = +1, which is countered by the ring of warmth: incentive +1. Net score 0 – he’s persuaded.

Additional options you could bring in as mentioned by Angry:

As I said, I wasn’t aware of Angry’s post when I ran the encounter. But it is a nice neat framework to guide such an interaction. I’ll definitely use to guide future negotiations.

In the next post I’ll look at the situation where the PCs are trying to counter a political rival.

Further reading

Systematic InterACTION! – The Angry GM

The Whatever Stat – The Angry GM

Exit mobile version