Rules Overview
The idea is simple, create a rules sub-system for "verbal combat" like the combat rules do for physical combat. And I think it's a decent goal. The fighters (including mages and such, who are fighting with magic mostly) get lots of cool rules and feats and class abilities to kill people with, but players who like to create and play talking characters have little to no love. I have never liked running "talking" campaigns since there are so few concrete rules to do so. Concrete rules are important, they give the players some expectations. If we just "make everything up" then how is the player supposed to visualize what advantages, hindrances, and actions to take to navigate the "verbal battlefield"? So my first thought on seeing these rules was positive.
As they say though, the devil is in the details...
Part 1 - Setup
The first thing the rules tell you to set up is the audience and stakes for the duel. Verbal duels can be serious, persuading a King to go to war, or "These can be fun and whimsical affairs—two duelists may engage in an argument about the merits of competing operas or fencing defenses, and the loser has to buy the evening’s drinks." If there is an audience they can somewhat influence how the system is played, but there does not have to be an audience.
I think this is the first misstep, I am okay with the general idea of a system that can be flexible enough to handle a verbal duel between two people privately and in front of a group, but I really think that (with the way they wrote it) these rules should only be used when there is an audience. If you're just trying to talk to or convince an individual, it would be better to use the basic skills or something like my RPG Conversation Map (which someday soon I will finish) - these rules have a lot of overhead and add a lot of complexity for a simple one-on-one conversation.
You also might be under the mistaken impression that this is a simple sub-system that will just use the existing rules for your character. Oh no, no no no. This is the second, and the biggest, misstep in my opinion - instead of using a basic "contested skill check" mechanic, the winner of the verbal duel is the one with the highest skill roll. This goes in "exchanges" so one side rolls a skill, then the other side chooses a skill and rolls, but they have to exceed the original roll or else they lose the exchange (which then starts another exchange). Because the highest roll wins you very quickly run into a huge problem: the metric butt-load of skill modifiers in all the magic items, feats, spells and class abilities.
From the published adventures I've read, most NPCs don't get statted out like characters, with the same class levels and "wealth per level" in magic items and feats to specialize in certain skills. So PCs tend to have an edge on NPCs in non-combat situations. Normally this is fine, the GM can just set any skill DC they think appropriate for Diplomacy rolls and the like. But for a system that requires multiple back-and-forth exchanges that escalate in the highest number rolled, well, you have to make sure that the NPCs have a chance to actually beat the PCs. Also, the flat-distribution of the d20 becomes a problem, since now random chance can easily make a conversation impossible to win. In order to deal with these issues, you actually have to make a separate "character sheet" for a verbal duel, well, mostly for the skills.
So how does this work? Well, let me re-print the relevant rules here...
Tactics
Tactics are the weapons of verbal dueling. At the start of each duel, each duelist can assign her skills to tactics that have those skills associated with them. A duelist can only assign a given skill to a single tactic, so if a duelist assigned Perform (oratory) to allegory, she couldn’t also assign it to emotional appeal. For the purpose of a verbal duel, a character calculates her associated skill bonus by adding her ranks in the skill (including the +3 bonus for having ranks in the skill if it is a class skill) and her Charisma modifier (regardless of which skill she chooses, unless she has the Ironclad Logic feat; see page 85). If she has other modifiers to the skill, they grant her edges (see above) [I've put them below]. The bard’s versatile performance ability allows two skills to use the bonus from a Perform skill, and a character with that ability can assign all three of those skills to different tactics, even though he technically might only have ranks in the Perform skill.
Edges
Edges are gained either by seeding a bias, using some trick of a verbal dueling tactic, when an opponent decides to end an exchange, or due to some other effect. A duelist can spend an edge to reroll an associated skill check for a verbal duel tactic. Sometimes you are limited as to when you can spend an edge. For instance, edges gained by seeding positive biases can only be spent when using the tactic associated with that bias.
Gaining Edges From Skill-Modifying Abilities: Only effects and abilities that modify an ability score, modify ranks, or specifically affect a tactic apply directly to the associated skill check in verbal duels. However, effects that increase the modifier of an entire associated skill (not just circumstantial uses of the skill) grant edges instead. For instance, the spell glibness neither adds to the associated skill check nor grants edges because it only grants a bonus to some cases in which Bluff can be used, and does not increase the skill’s general modifier.
For spells and effects that do apply to a verbal duel, such as a circlet of persuasion or Skill Focus, instead of the normal modifiers to skill rolls, they grant a number of edges equal to 1/3 of the total bonus they would otherwise grant. For example, a character with Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and 10 ranks in that skill would gain two edges instead of a +6 bonus. Total up all such bonuses before dividing by 3. All edges gained in this way are limited to the particular tactic associated with the skill.
In many cases, using magic to enhance one’s verbal dueling skills is often considered gauche or even illegal. The more official the verbal duel, the more likely the chance magic will be restricted or even banned. This is often particularly true during the course of duels in a legal setting.
This is kind of a pain in the posterior. If you're making a low-level character, re-calculating all their skills isn't too terrible. When I used these rules I had a level 10 PC, and it took a while. I've got a kind of worksheet, which I will link to below, that helps - but it is still work to create a whole different set of skills for just one sub-system, and one that you might not use all that often.
Also, in keeping with the "duel" motif, we need a way to do damage and some kind of hit points. In this system your "hit points" are called determination...
Determination: A duelist’s base determination is the average (rounded down) of her Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma modifiers (minimum 0) + her total Hit Dice.
Adjusting Determination: Circumstances and effects might increase this pool of determination points, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, for a particular type of verbal duel, it might make sense to use a single ability modifier rather than the average. For a longer verbal duel, especially at low levels, it might make sense to use the highest of a character’s three mental ability modifiers or even add two or all three together.
One of the main ways to adjust determination is to consider if one of the characters has a social advantage or disadvantage. While the GM is free to determine the particulars of a character’s social advantage or disadvantage in a situation, the four default categories are extreme advantage, significant advantage, significant disadvantage, and extreme disadvantage. A character at an extreme advantage multiplies her determination by 2 and gains 5 edges. A character with a significant advantage multiplies her determination by 1.5 and gains 3 edges. A character at a significant disadvantage multiplies her determination by 3/4. Finally, a character at an extreme disadvantage multiplies her determination by 1/2 and loses 3 of her starting edges (minimum 0).
There are a lot of judgment calls in that block of rules, which I am not fond of, but the basics are not too hard to grasp. After you've played the system a few times then you should have a good grasp on how long a duel will take based on how much determination each side has. I would say to keep the number at the lowest for the first few exchanges, this is not such a great system that you want to spend hours playing it out.
So with your determination as "hit points" then how much damage do you do? Well, each exchange sets the "ante" starting at 1 and going up by 1 for each counter. So let's say you're level 3 and you have an average mental modifier of 2, for 5 determination total. You start a verbal duel, setting the ante at 1. Your opponent successfully rolls higher and counters, setting the ante at 2, you counter and are successful, so now the ante is 3, now if your opponent fails to roll higher than you did, they will take the ante in damage, so they lose 3 points of determination. When they reach 0 they give up and the verbal duel is over.
Here's a quick house rule I strongly recommend - when you explain this to your players call it "Credibility." When you reach 0 hit points you are unconscious and dying, so it's pretty reasonable they you are out of the fight. But when someone has said a few mean things to you, it's a lot harder to swallow that you are going to give up and hide in the corner. This is just a change in semantics, but saying your character has lost the will to fight sounds worse (IMHO) then saying you've lost credibility with your audience, and thus can no longer change their minds. Also, with the "Credibility" concept you can change determination to other attributes - maybe Orcs only respect physically strong characters, so your 'credibility' score is the average of your physical attributes instead of your mental ones (which could be a fun way to get the fighter to take the lead in negotiations, while the Bard disguises himself as an Orc to influence the audience).
I like the idea of the ante system, how it "raises the stakes" with each roll. I'm not sure I really like how it plays at the table, but it isn't a bad idea.
Part 2 - Audience
So I started by talking about the changes you have to make to your character, since I think that is the most complex part of the system to get used to. The book actually starts by talking about your audience (if you have one). This is simple, so let's go over it real quick...
It is also important to determine whether or not the verbal duel involves an audience that can be swayed. For example, if the duel occurs between the captain of the watch and one of the PCs, the PC could be trying to get a mob to attack the tower of a corrupt high priest, while the captain is attempting to convince the crowd to disperse. Crowds often have their own motivations and predilections, and certain tactics during the duel will have a greater or lesser effect on its members, which can affect the results. Determining the nature of such crowd attitudes and how to affect them can sometimes grant a powerful advantage.
Assessing an Audience
A duelist and any of her allies who have at least 10 minutes to interact with the crowd before a verbal duel begins can attempt a check to determine an audience bias (see below). Succeeding at a DC 15 Sense Motive check allows a duelist or one of her allies to learn one of the crowd’s biases. Sometimes assessing an audience can have a higher DC if the GM feels the crowd is particularly tight-lipped or their biases are otherwise obscured. Once a character attempts a Sense Motive check to assess an audience’s biases, she can’t retry that check, even if she has more time to study the audience.
Audience Biases
When a verbal duel features an audience that can be swayed, the GM determines any types of dueling tactics that the audience either favors or disfavors. If a crowd has a negative bias against a particular tactic, duelists take a –2 penalty on the associated skill check when using that tactic. If the audience has a positive bias toward a tactic, duelists gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill check when using that tactic. Some audiences may have even stronger biases, imparting penalties and bonuses that range from –5 to +5.
In cases where a verbal duel has no audience, there are no audience biases to track.
The GM is free to create whatever biases she would like, but each bias should be both reasonable and fit with the attitudes of the audience. A group of hard-minded wizards might have a negative bias toward allegory but applaud logic, while a rowdy group of tavern-goers could have a very positive bias toward mockery but start booing and hissing at logic. A GM does not need to create biases for all tactics, but having a handful of them can make the debate more interesting and flavorful and allow the duelist’s allies to help affect the duel by assessing and seeding the audience.
Seeding an Audience
Once she knows one or more of the crowd’s biases, a character can attempt to seed the crowd and gain benefits for her side of the verbal duel. A GM may rule that seeding a crowd is impossible or very difficult. For example, seeding a jury in a lawful society may be very difficult, and is probably illegal or even practically impossible. Audiences that can be seeded allow allies of each duelist to urge the argument in other directions.
To attempt to seed an audience, a character must spend at least 10 minutes with members of the crowd before the verbal duel begins, choose one of the audience’s biases she knows, and succeed at a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check with a DC of at least 15. The GM may rule that the DC is higher due to the ally’s lack of familiarity with the crowd or other factors—as high as the duelist’s level + 15 or 20 for especially challenging situations.
If the character chose to seed a positive bias and succeeds at the check, the duelist of her choice gains an edge (see page 177) that can be spent when that duelist uses the tactic associated with the positive bias during the verbal duel. If the character fails the check, she can’t attempt to seed the same audience again. If the character fails the check by 5 or more, no one can attempt to seed that positive bias again in her duelist’s favor.
If the character chose to seed a negative bias and succeeds at the check, the duelist of her choice gains an edge that can be spent when that duelist counters the tactic associated with the negative bias. If the character fails the check, she can’t attempt to seed the same audience again. If the character fails the check by 5 or more, no one can attempt to seed that negative bias again in her duelist’s favor.
Both sides can attempt to seed the audience before the duel begins and can even seed the same biases, but a given duelist can only benefit from a single successful seeding of a particular bias.
Okay, so the audience might like or dislike certain tactics (which I'll talk about next), that's cool, gives the audience some character. Letting the other party members influence the audience is also a good idea, it gives them something to do in a mostly one-character show. From the wording, it seems to me that the other party members have to influence the audience before the verbal duel begins - I'm not so fond of that. Since everything is so focused on the character doing the talking (usually one, multiple characters seem like they would be a hassle to play out) I would like it if the other party members could influence the audience after their PC teammate rolled - that way they could save a bad roll or boost a good one. I'd make the DC lower for an audience-favored tactic and higher for one the audience didn't like - and add a stacking penalty for each influence attempt after the first. This works as-written, I just think it could be improved.
Part 3 - Exchanges
Okay, on to the meat of the verbal duel, the exchanges.
One side opens, depends on the story and the GM who. That character chooses a tactic to open with. So let's talk about the tactics. There are 10 total, and they represent how your character is framing their argument. The tactics are...
- Allegory "You use a fable or parable featuring an underlying message to frame the debate."
- Baiting "You hurl taunts and barbs, or level false dichotomies, goading your opponent into a trap."
- Emotional Appeal "You make an argument appealing to the emotional desires of your opponent or audience."
- Flattery "You ingratiate yourself to your opponent, causing him to either let down his guard or to gain some other advantage."
- Logic "When you use logic, you present facts, figures, and expert testimony."
- Mockery "You use personal attacks, mudslinging, or creative insults to belittle your opponent."
- Presence "You make a show of confidence or true nobility or you simply put on airs, and an opponent’s claims slide off and bounce back against him, leaving you unscathed."
- Red Herring "You use this tactic to distract your opponent or the audience from the heart of the debate, avoiding the danger of the current exchange. While a red herring can’t be used as an opener, it can be used to quickly end an exchange that is getting too dangerous to continue."
- Rhetoric "You use versatile debating tactics, applying advantageous rhetorical devices to squash your opponent’s arguments. Since rhetoric involves subtle word choices that most audiences don’t notice consciously, it is very rare for an audience to have a negative bias toward rhetoric."
- Wit "You use humor or cleverness to gain an advantage over your opponent, but the tactic can backfire if your jokes and jibes fall flat."
Unfortunately, I don't think they implemented that tactics in a strong way. Ideally tactics are all about trade-offs, the tactic of "power attack" in physical combat means taking a penalty to hit in exchange for a bonus to damage. That makes for an interesting choice: is hitting or damaging more important right now? That's a question that could change, against hard-to-hit opponents the answer's usually no, but in a desperate situation where you only have 1 HP left, it may be worth trying if the opponent has only a few HP as well in hopes of one-shotting the opposition. With these verbal duel tactics however, some of them seem to be much more or less useful than others. This is a very had thing to say, you can only really understand a tactical system by actually playing it out to get the feel for it - and I have only used these rules once.
So the biggest thing about the tactics are how they interact. Some tactics give a bonus to counter/ respond to others (for example Emotional Appeal has a penalty if countering Baiting, but a bonus if countering Logic), and some have special rules (if you win an exchange with Presence you regain 1 determination/ credibility/ hit point). It takes some study to keep track of all the ways tactics interact. And then the audience may like or dislike certain tactics.
To recap again: one side picks a tactic and rolls, the other side picks a tactic, applies modifiers, and rolls (if they have any edges they can spend one to re-roll). If they get higher the ante/ damage increases and it goes back to the other side. If they get lower or equal, they lose the exchange and take the ante as damage. When one side loses they start the next exchange. The winning side gets a penalty to the tactic they won with (only the last winning tactic, not all of the ones used in the exchange) since "At that point, the audience and your opponent have both seen some of the best you had to offer with that tactic." This is good since it forces you to use multiple tactics instead of relying on one really good score. Likewise each tactic has to be tied to a skill, and there is a nice variety. Knowledge (history) or (nobility), Linguistics and even Profession can be used along with the talking standards of Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive. This is also good since it lets more classes/ character types be effective in a conversation. I kind of think the skills should almost tie into the audience, or at least the topic at hand, but I will grant that would be a super-difficult thing to work out given how many different types of conversations there could be.
I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about the tactics right now, but I'll revisit them later.
Part 4 - Continuation and Fallout
So whoever loses the exchange loses determination, and whoever hits 0 determination (or just concedes) loses. What happens next depends on the story/ situation.
Example of Play
Okay, hopefully at this point you have enough understanding of the basics that a concrete example would help. I'm going to do something a little different though, I'm actually going to give you two examples. My first example comes from the book.
From The Book
This is the exact example from Ultimate Intrigue, page 181...
Lem has discovered that Meligaster is manipulating a group of nobles, and he hopes to expose his brother’s evil schemes. He calls his brother out for a verbal duel in front of the nobles. Meligaster, who knows he has a significant advantage and knows the nobles well, eagerly accepts the duel, seeding the nobles’ positive biases toward wit and flattery. Because of his significant advantage, Meligaster starts with 12 determination to Lem’s 8 determination, and Meligaster also possesses 3 edges from his advantages, as well as edges to use in each of wit and flattery.
Lem starts the duel using logic, with a result of 20 on the associated skill check, starting the ante at 1. He rationally and factually explains some of the ways that Meligaster has been manipulating the nobles for his own devious profit. Meligaster responds by making an emotional appeal to the nobles’ pride and honor, raising the ante to 2 and redirecting the conversation away from the facts successfully with a 28 (including the bonus from countering logic with an emotional appeal).
Lem decides to continue the exchange, raising the ante to 3. He tries to use rhetoric to expose Meligaster’s trick, with an initial result of 18 due to a low roll. He uses an edge he gained from his circlet of persuasion to reroll and manages 30, just enough to counter Meligaster.
Meligaster knows that 30 is going to be tough to beat. He decides to raise the ante to 4 and uses flattery as his tactic, obsequiously singing the nobles’ praises. The nobles are positively biased toward it, he seeded that bias for an edge, and he chose to associate flattery with Bluff, so he gained an additional edge from his consummate liar class feature. Meligaster has to use both edges to reroll twice, but his third roll is a natural 20, for a result of 36, so he counters Lem.
Lem realizes that he would be hard-pressed to beat that result, so he knows he’s about to lose the exchange. He has to choose how to lose it, though. Because Meligaster used flattery, when Lem loses, the ante will decrease by 2 and Meligaster will gain an edge. That means Lem has to decide whether to simply end the exchange, giving Meligaster a total of 2 edges and losing 2 determination, or raise the ante to 5 and try a skill check, losing 3 determination if he fails (thanks to his brother’s flattery). but allowing Meligaster to gain only 1 edge. In the end, since Lem only has 8 determination, he feels he can’t risk losing 3 all at once, so much to his dismay, he surrenders the exchange to Meligaster.
Now Lem has 6 determination left. He can open a new exchange against Meligaster and try again, and at least Meligaster suffers a –2 penalty on future uses of flattery, so Lem doesn’t have to worry about beating another 36.
This example sucks. It is better than nothing, like the nothing they had for the Pursuit rules, but that's a pretty low bar. The thing is, this is only the first exchange, this is like a combat example that ended after the first turn. And there are no specifics on how the skills were assigned or any of the important details you are going to have to go through to use this system.
My Example
So let me give you a good example. Because I love you guys ;)
The Characters
I don't really feel like making two characters form scratch, so I'm going to cheat and pull two from the NPC Codex. I want some fairly low-level characters, because I don't want to spend hours writing out this example. I'm also going to have 1 "generic party member" and 1 "generic bad guy" to help the talkers.
My PC/ hero is going to be Eksel Mertand, a Human female level 5 Bard (page 28). The bad guy is the "Charlatan" a Human level 4 Rogue (page 145). I'm going to call him Bob. So Bob the Bad Guy has infiltrated the local Mage's College and is trying to get them to look into Things Man Was Not Meant To Know on behalf of his dark master. Eksel is trying to persuade the college (on behalf of the King) to leave well enough alone.
So the first thing to do is work out everybody's tactics and determination.
For Eksel her Int/ Wis/ Cha modifiers are (14) +2, (13) +1 and (18) +4, for 7/ 2 round down is 3, added to her level of 5 gives her 8 determination total.
Each tactic has to be tied to a specific skill, and uses the ranks and Cha instead of the normal attribute modifier. The NPC Codex doesn't give the number of ranks, so I'll have to look at the bonuses to figure that out. Being a Bard means virtually every skill is a class skill, and her Cha mod is +4. I'm going to allocate her skills as follows...
- Allegory +9 (knowledge/religion) - she has a +9 bonus in the know/religion skill, it is class (so there's 3), her Int is +2 (for 5 of the 9), and she gets a +2 from her Bardic Knowledge class ability (for 7 of the 9), so I think she only has 2 ranks in this instead of the full 5 for her level (and tactics use Cha even though Knowledge is usually Int)
- Baiting +4 (unskilled) - not trained in perform (comedy) and all the other skills are taken
- Emotional Appeal +12 (sense motive) - her Bard ability of Versatile Performance is substituting for this skill
- Flattery +4 (unskilled) - I'm using the other skills in other tactics
- Logic +12 (knowledge/history) - I'm thinking she knows about the history of whatever the Wizards are meddling with
- Mockery +12 (bluff) - she's not skilled in either intimidate or perform (comedy)
- Presence +12 (knowledge/nobility) - she's not trained in intimidate, so only one other choice
- Red Herring +12 (perform/oratory) - used bluff for mockery
- Rhetoric +12 (diplomacy) - her Bard ability of Versatile Performance is substituting for this skill
- Wit +4 (unskilled) - she's not proficient in either linguistics or perform (comedy), so this one is going to be unskilled - just a +4 for Cha mod
Edges
She does have Skill Focus (Bluff), so she's going to get 1 Edge for Mockery.
She also has the Bardic Knowledge class ability, which (if I'm reading Ultimate Intrigue page 177 right) means that she gets 1 edge in each knowledge skill, so she also has 1 Edge each for: Allegory, Logic and Presence.
She doesn't seem to have any attribute-buffing magic items.
That takes care of the hero, now we need to llocate skills for the villian.
Bob the Bad Guy has Int/ Wis/ Cha of (13) +1, (12) +1, (18) +4 for (6/ 2) 3 plus level of 4 = 7 Determination.
Being a Rogue most skills will be class, his Cha is +4. I'm allocating tactics like this...
- Allegory +4 (unskilled) - not trained in any of the listed skills
- Baiting +11 (sense motive) - sense motive is his only other good skill, I could put it in emotional appeal but I think he's a baiting kind of character
- Emotional Appeal +4 (unskilled) - I've used his bluff and sense motive, he's not trained in oratory
- Flattery +11 (bluff) - I'm thinking he does a Grima Wormtongue and ingratiates himself with others
- Logic +11 (use magic device) - I'm going to say his UMD lets him make a compelling case for playing with The Thing, logic seems to be pretty flexible in terms of skill allocation
- Mockery +4 (unskilled) - used bluff, not trailed in the others
- Presence +4 (unskilled) - not trained in any of the listed skills
- Red Herring +4 (unskilled) - used bluff, not trailed in the others
- Rhetoric +11 (diplomacy) - used bluff for flattery and isn't skilled in any of the others, so only one choice here
- Wit +4 (unskilled) - not trained in any of the listed skills
Edges
He has the Deceitful skill feat, so he's going to get 1 Edge with Flattery. No other feats, abilities or items.
That takes care of the talkers. Comparing the two, it definitely seems like my hero has the edge, so this is a pretty easy challenge overall. If this was production (so to speak) I'd customize the bad guy to be a little more challenging, but since this is just an example I've already sunk more time into it than I want to spend.
The Audience
Another way to adjust the "challenge rating" of the verbal duel is with the audience. If they have a lot of negative biases or negatives to the ones the hero is strongest in, then it can make the fight harder. Since my Bad Guy is kinda weak, I'm going to say that he has one henchman, who's seeding him an Edge for Baiting.
I'm thinking the Wizards are smart but vain, so I'm giving them positive biases (+2) for Logic and Emotional Appeal. I'm giving them negative biases (-2) for Mockery and Wit, they don't joke around much.
Now, each character can only make a check to learn 1 bias, either positive or negative. Since I'm 'playing' both sides of this however, I can't really help but make decisions knowing everything. I'll try to play dumb if it matters I guess :)
Exchange 1
I'll let the Bad Guy open, again since he's a little less powerful overall. Not sure how big a deal it is though. I'm using the online dice roller from Wizards of the Coast again even though it hated me last time. So he definitely knows all the audience's biases (he has infiltrated them after all) and he wants to start strong. I set the ante to 1 and he'll use Logic, for a 15 (roll) +11 +2 for bias and +2 for using logic as an opener = 30.
That's a pretty good roll. Now if you counter with the same tactic (logic in this case) you take a -2. Allegory and Mockery also have a -2 when countering Logic. Emotional Appeal has a +2 however. Eksel has a +12 in Emotional Appeal, for 14 with the bonus, and no Edges however, so she'd need a (31 - 14 =) 17 or higher assuming she didn't know about the audience bias, or 15+ if she did. Either way, not very good odds. She's going to concede this exchange, taking 1 damage leaving her with 7 Determination.
The Bad Guy won with Logic, so he has a -2 every time he uses it from now on. He also gains 1 Edge for use with Logic (as part of the tactic's special rules).
Exchange 2
Eksel starts the next exchange. Now here's the thing, Bad Guy came out and won quickly, but now he has a penalty and he only did 1 damage. So Eksel's thinking that she might actually want to start with one of her lowest tactics, let the Bad Guy win a counter or two, and then hit him with one of her strongest tactics. Maybe. Let's try it and find out. She's going to open with Flattery, praising her opponent for making a good argument, sets the ante at 1 and gets an 11 +4 = 15 total.
Bad Guy senses weakness, so he counters with Baiting, hoping to lure her into a verbal trap, the ante becomes 2 and he gets 10 +11 = 21 total, beating her roll. But he decides to use his Edge from his henchman in the audience, to re-roll comes up a 13, for 23 total.
A 23 isn't bad and baiting is a strange tactic because Allegory and Logic have a -4 to counter it, and all other tactics have a -2 to counter. This is going to be a little tricky. I'm thinking she would go with Emotional Appeal, successfully countering with it will increase the ante by 1, so it'll do more damage (gambling that she wins the exchange) and it's one of her strongest tactics - if she knew about the positive audience bias for it she'd definitely go this way, even if she doesn't it isn't a bad idea. So she raises the ante to 3 and gets a 14 +11 +2 for bias = 27 beating his roll and raising the ante to 4.
Bad Guy now needs a 28 or higher to continue. No tactics have a bonus to counter emotional appeal, the best he could do would be to try Flattery - he'd need to roll an 18-20, but he does have 1 Edge from his feat. That would be pretty risky though. He decides to play it safe and take the damage, hopefully he can turn the tables in the next exchange. His 7 determination - 4 ante leaves him with 3 Determination.
Eksel won with Emotional Appeal, so she has a -2 to all future uses of it (well, for this duel at least).
Exchange 3
Bad Guy opens this one. He has a -2 to Logic for winning with it, but it still has a +2 to open with, the bias, and he has a Edge for it - so he's going to try Logic again. He sets the ante to 1, rolls a 4, uses his edge, rolls 9 +11 +2 bias +2 opening -2 won = 22.
Eskel knows Emotional Appeal has a +2 vs Logic, but she's got the -2 for winning with it. She raises the ante to 2 and counters with Presence, rolls a 10, uses her Edge with it, re-rolls a 2. Now, I don't remember it saying so explicitly, but I would think that you only take the roll for an Edge if it was better, so her original 10 stands, +12 = 22 which ties his roll, so she loses the exchange. She takes the 2 ante in damage for a new total of 5 Determination.
Bad Guy won with Logic, so he gains an Edge for it, and I don't know if the -2 for winning with a tactic is supposed to stack? Let's say it does and he'll be at -4 for future Logic rolls.
Exchange 4
Eskel opens again, and she's going to go weak again and hope to build up enough to knock him out this exchange. She sets the ante to 1, and uses Allegory, rolls 3 +9 for 12 total. She does have an Edge with it, but she wants to be countered.
Bad Guy just needs a 13 total, so anything should work. Presence is the only tactic weak at countering Allegory (except Allegory itself, -2 if you counter with the last tactic used on you). He sets the ante to 2 and tries Baiting again (he's used it but not won with it) rolls 6 +11 = 17, which is good enough.
Eskel sets the ante to 3, and I'm going to assume she knows that's enough to finish him off, so she's going to make this one count. Baiting is hard to counter, as mentioned above, and she decides to go with Mockery. Even if she knew about the audience bias, she's got a +12 in it and an Edge for it, so it should work out. She rolls a 2, uses that edge and re-rolls a 14 +11 -2 bias = 23, beating his roll.
Bad Guy is in a tight spot, if he concedes he loses the duel so he might as well try something. The only tactic with a bonus to countering Mockery is Presence, but he only has a +4 in it. He decides to go for Rhetoric, rolls a 5 +11 = 16, not good enough - so he takes the 3 ante damage, losing all his Determination, and the duel.
Eskel celebrates as the Wizards decide playing with time and space might not be a good idea - for now at least...
What I Like About The System
The tactics system is interesting, it's pretty good at the specific circumstance of swaying an audience, and while it is a fair amount to learn it isn't too hard to get a handle on. Compared to the Pursuit rules this is much, much better.
What I Don't Like About The System
Not much for the other party members to do. Having to re-work all your skills and keep a separate list sucks. Kind of long, for being a solo system, and not super intuitive (though it isn't horrible to learn). Strangely balanced, some tactics seem to be more useful than others, though depending on how you allocate your skills that can change things. While I find it playable, I'd really love to completely re-build it because I think there's a really good skeleton in there.
Closing Thoughts
This has been another all-day project, so I'm not sure what I can add - my brain is turning to mush. I hope this has been useful, and here are the links to my Google Drive and the Handout PDF I made...
EDIT 1/10/2023: Due to current confusion about the upcoming OGL v1.1 and how that might relate to the previous OGL 1.0a that I was using, I have removed all links to my previous documents. I will try to alter and re-upload them in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment