Debates
A
debate is a social contest between two or more parties. A debate may be
performed to influence a listener or audience or to settle a personal
disagreement. There are several steps to follow in preparing for the debate,
some of which are optional depending on the presence of an audience and what is
at stake.
Debates
can be used to add novelty to a campaign focused on physical conflict, present
challenges that can’t be overcome simply by the application of powers, or to
lend the excitement often found in action oriented games to campaigns centered
on intrigue or where combat is less likely or undesirable.
Debate Terminology
Active Participant:
The last character to set a new exchange DC
Ante:
The value of the current exchange. This number is added to the DC for any
determination checks made as a result of conceding a point or failing a
counter.
Counter:
An attempt to respond to an opening or counter used in the current exchange. If
the counter succeeds, a new exchange DC is set and the character who used it
becomes the active participant.
Determination:
A character’s ability to remain relevant to the debate in the eyes of the
audience. Each participant has a determination score equal to the sum of their Awareness, Fighting, Intellect, and Presence.
Determination
check: When a character concedes a
point or fails a counter, they must attempt a determination check. The DC of
this check is 15, plus the ante value recorded at the moment of concession or a
failed counter, plus the exchange winner’s determination score.
Discredited:
After failing a determination check by four degrees, a debate participant
becomes discredited in the eyes of the audience. Discredited participants
cannot open an exchange and can no longer win the debate. Discredited
characters also suffer a -2 circumstance penalty when using any counter or a -5
circumstance penalty when attempting to counter the participant who discredited
them. If a discredited participant wins an exchange, the losing participant
receives a +10 bonus to their determination check.
Exchange:
An alternating verbal contest during which participants attempt to build their
case and achieve recognition from the audience. Participants choose tactics to
make their point which other participants have an opportunity to counter.
Exchanges tend to escalate until participants concede the point or fail to
counter making the active participant the winner of the exchange.
Exchange
DC: The result of the most recent
skill check made when employing a debate tactic. This number sets the DC for
any counter attempt. If a counter attempt exceeds the current exchange DC, that
skill check result sets the new exchange DC of any subsequent counter attempts.
Leverage:
Allows a character to reroll a skill check when using a tactic. Debate
participants can accumulate leverage to spend during exchanges.
Negative Bias:
Debate tactics which the audience prefers to see avoided during an exchange.
Participant:
Any character directly involved in the debate.
Positive Bias:
Debate tactics which the audience tends to respond favorably to.
Tactic:
A method of swaying audience opinion.
Debate Preparation
Once
all of the debate participants understand what is at stake and whether the
debate is a private or public affair, each participant and their allies may
take steps to influence the outcome as described below. All if these actions
are optional.
Discern Bias
By
making an Insight
check to evaluate
an audience a debate participant (or ally) can learn one of the audience's
biases for each degree of success (see graded checks).
The difficulty
class and time rank measurement
of this check is determined by the gamemaster depending on the audience size
and composition. If the audience is a single individual or small group, the DC
is based on opposed Deception checks unless the audience makes
no effort to hide or minimize their bias.
Once
a character attempts to assess an audience's biases, the check can’t be retried
for the purposes of the current debate.
Seeding an Audience
If
the gamemaster allows, a character can attempt to gain leverage for one of the participants in the debate by seeding the
audience. To do so, the character must know at least one of the audience’s
biases and must choose one of them to influence. This requires a successful Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion check and an amount
of time determined by the audience size.
Positive Bias:
The character can seed a positive bias and earn leverage which one debate
participant can use with the tactic associated with that bias. This check can’t
be retired for the purposes of the current debate and if it fails by two or
more degrees, no further attempts to seed an audience with that positive bias can
be attempted on behalf of the same debate participant.
Negative Bias:
The character can seed a negative bias and earn leverage which one debate
participant can use when countering the tactic associated with the negative
bias. This check can’t be retired for the purposes of the current debate and if
it fails by two or more degrees, no further attempts to seed an audience with that
negative bias can be attempted on behalf of the same debate participant.
Both
sides of a debate can attempt to seed the audience before debate commences and
can attempt to influence the same biases. A given participant can only benefit
from a single successful seeding of any particular bias, however.
Debate Tactics and Traits
Participants
involved in a debate make use of traits already present in most characters. Debate
participants use a trait called determination as an expression of their
conviction, resolve and self-confidence. Determination measures each participant’s
ability to remain relevant to the discussion in the consciousness of the
audience. Debate participants can also gain and use leverage, representing a
significant advantage either present at the start of the debate, perhaps as a
result of a participants personal qualities or social standing, or gained by
actions taken to influence the audience or other participants before or during
the debate. Finally, participants can make use of special debate actions called
tactics which are used to impress an audience and oppose arguments forwarded by
the other participants.
Leverage
Leverage
can be gained by seeding a bias, using a debate tactic, when an opponent
decides to end an exchange, or due to some other effect. A debate participant
can spend leverage to reroll an associated skill check when employing a debate
tactic.
Determination
Characters participating in a debate receive determination
score which is equal to the sum of their mental abilities (Awareness, Fighting, Intellect, and Presence).
In addition, the gamemaster can apply a circumstance bonus or penalty to each
participant’s determination score based on audience preconception, participant
appearance, social status and any number of other factors.
Tactics
Tactics
are the strikes, parries, weapons and shields of debates. At the start of a
debate, each participant should look over their skills and the tactics
associated with them and then assign one skill to each tactic. A debate
participant can only assign any given skill to a single tactic, so if they
decide to assign Expertise: Oration to the allegory
tactic, that particular skill could not be also assigned to emotional appeal (or
any other tactic). Additional bonuses or penalties may apply to a skill check
due to the audience's bias, as well as from the following considerations:
•Last
Tactic: Using the same tactic to counter one that was
just used often appears awkward and may be considered poor form. When doing so,
the active participant takes a -2 circumstance penalty on the associated skill
check for the tactic. For example, if your opponent uses mockery against you, you
can choose to counter with mockery, but you take the -2 penalty on your
associated skill check when you do.
•Repetition
of Tactics: Using the same tactic over and over again is generally
not an effective way to win debates and when a participant does so, it may
appear that they have no other arguments to make. Over the course of a debate,
each time a participant wins an exchange with a particular tactic, that
participant takes a cumulative -2 penalty when using the tactic again due to
audience fatigue and the fact that opponents are more likely to have a suitable
response
•Tactic
Interaction: Some tactics can be more or less
effective when used as a counter other tactics. It is harder to counter a
logical argument with mockery, for example. The description of each tactic features
an “Interaction” entry if that tactic has noteworthy conflicts and synergies.
Debate Exchanges and Resolution
After handling all pre-debate considerations and
introducing the participants to the audience, the debate can begin. Some
debates are fast-paced arguments that begin with little preamble as soon as one
participant chooses to start talking. Others are highly structured affairs and
may feature some form of moderation by one or more non-participants as might be
the case with legal proceedings or diplomatic negotiations.
The gamemaster is free to adjudicate the start of the debate as best fits the circumstances, but all participants must be aware that the debate is about to occur and should have equal time to interact with the audience beforehand. In a structured debate, lots might be drawn to determine who will speak first, or perhaps once participant is chosen to open the debate out of social considerations such as age or rank. If it is ever unclear which participant should start, the game master may call for a die roll to determine who speaks first. Perhaps by calling for Intellect checks or having participants roll initiative.
Exchanges
Debates
are resolved with a series of exchanges representing a clash of ideas and
arguments made for and against one participant’s case.
At
the start of each exchange, one of the participants chooses an opening tactic,
making them the active participant.
The active participant makes a check using the skill they have assigned to the
chosen tactic, increases the ante of
the exchange by 1, and sets the current exchange
DC to the result of their skill check. The ante of the exchange begins at 0
but changes in value throughout the exchange and is added to the determination check DC made by the
loser(s) of the exchange.
Once
the opening tactic is declared and
the exchange DC is recorded, one of the opposing participants must decide whether
to counter the active participant’s opening
or concede the point. If any
participant decides to counter the opening, the ante of the exchange increases by
1, then that character chooses a countering tactic, and attempts the associated
skill check. If that skill check exceeds the current DC of the exchange, the
exchange continues with the new exchange DC and the countering character
becomes the active participant.
The
character who opened the exchange may now try to counter or concede the point.
If the character concedes or the counter attempt fails to exceed the current DC
of the exchange, that character is forced out of the exchange. Any other
participant can now attempt a counter the tactic of the active participant until
all participants fail, concede, or successfully counter and set a new exchange
DC.
The
exchange continues until each participant has conceded the point or failed a counter
attempt. The last participant forced out the exchange can either open a new
exchange as the active participant or bow
out of the debate. Characters who have been discredited (see below) cannot open a new exchange but may pass to
the next to last participant if they do not wish to bow out.
If
any participants concede an exchange or fail a counter attempt, they must make
a determination check with a DC equal to 15 + the exchange winner’s
determination score. They also take a penalty to this check equal to exchange
ante at the time of their concession or failed counter attempt. The winner of
the exchange also gains leverage if any participants conceded to any of their
tactics.
When
a character fails a determination check, the suffer a cumulative -1 penalty to
all future determination checks (similar to failing a toughness check when
suffering damage).
If a character fails a determination check by two or three degrees, they suffer
a penalty to their next skill check made to use a debate tactic (-2 for failing
by two degrees, -5 for failing by three degrees). If they fail by four or more
degrees, they are discredited and become unable to win the debate or open an
exchange. In addition, such characters suffer a -2 circumstance penalty when
using any counter. This penalty increases to -5 when countering a tactic used
by the participant who discredited them. If a discredited participant wins an exchange,
the losing participant receives a +10 bonus to their determination check.
At
the end of each exchange, any participant can call for an end to the debate and
attempt to set terms for the outcome. If all participants agree, the debate is
considered a draw. Otherwise, one or more participants may be called upon to
bow out. The debate also ends automatically when all but one of the
participants has been discredited. In these cases, the participant who is not
discredited is recognized by the audience as the winner. Ungracious
participants who have been discredited may refuse to bow out and continue to
make their case, but the audience tends to drift away, refuse to listen or
become hostile depending on the present scenario.
The
influence of the debate’s resolution depends upon what was at stake. If there
was a clear winner, the audience views that character at least somewhat
favorably and tends to agree with their point of view (at least as it was
presented during the debate). This can benefit the winner legally or socially,
and those benefits may apply immediately or positively influence later events.
Losing a debate doesn’t necessarily mean that a character loses friends, social
standing, legal rights, money or anything else of significant value. Certainly,
if losing participants conducted themselves well, they may not appear to have
lost anything; their tactics simply failed to appear as effective or
influential as their opponents’. Truly significant social conflicts include
debates as merely one facet of a larger struggle and may require additional
debates or other challenges before any lasting effects are known.
List of Tactics
Allegory
You
use a fable or parable featuring an underlying message to frame the debate.
While it is sometimes difficult to use allegory in the heat of an exchange, it
makes a very effective opener.
Associated
Skills: Expertise: History, Expertise: Theology, Expertise: Acting, Expertise: Oration, Expertise: Philosophy and Religion
Interaction:
You take a -2 penalty on the associated skill checks when using allegory to
counter.
Special:
If you use allegory to open an exchange, and your opponent chooses to end the
exchange rather than attempt to counter your allegory, increase the exchange's
current ante by 2 (before your opponent's determination check) instead of
gaining leverage.
Baiting
You
hurl taunts and barbs, or level false dichotomies, goading your opponent into a
trap. Baiting works best when the stakes are already high, since in that case
backing down can be even more damaging than blundering into your trap.
Associated
Skills: Deception, Expertise: Comedy, Insight, Intimidation
Interaction:
When a participant uses any tactic other than presence, they take a -2
circumstance penalty on the associated skill check to countering baiting.
Special:
Baiting cannot be employed to open an exchange. If your opponent chooses to
concede rather than counter, your baiting doesn't suffer the normal -2 penalty
on future associated skill checks for winning an exchange.
Emotional Appeal
You
make an argument appealing to the emotional desires of your opponents or the audience.
This tactic is particularly useful against participants with an advantage in
status or knowledge; raising the emotional stakes can be rewarding, but it can
also be dangerous.
Interaction:
You gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill check when using an emotional
appeal to counter logic, presence, and rhetoric.
Special:
Successfully countering with an emotional appeal increases the exchange's ante
by an additional 1.
Flattery
You
ingratiate yourself to one or more of your opponents, giving you an advantage.
Often deceptive and manipulative, this tactic can also represent the actions of
characters who are genuinely likeable and friendly.
Associated
Skills: Deception, Expertise: Diplomacy, Expertise: Journalism, Expertise: Psychology, Persuasion
Interaction:
You take a –2 penalty on the associated skill check when using flattery to
counter mockery. You gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill check when using
flattery to counter presence.
Special:
If you win an exchange with flattery, reduce the ante of the exchange by 2
(minimum 0) and gain leverage that can be used with any skill check during the
debate.
Logic
When
you use logic, you present facts, figures, and expert testimony. While logic
can still be used to mislead your adversary or the audience, unlike most other
tactics, it still requires a strong understanding of the subject matter to do
so.
Associated
Skills: Expertise (any pertinent); depending on the subject, Investigation, Technology, Treatment or Vehicles could apply.
Interaction:
You gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill check when you use logic as an
opener. You take a –2 penalty on the associated skill check when you use logic
to counter baiting, emotional appeal, mockery, red herring, or wit.
Special:
When you win an exchange with logic, you gain leverage that you can only use
with logic.
Mockery
You
use personal attacks, mudslinging, or creative insults to belittle your
opponent. Mockery works best when you capitalize on your opponent's use of an
unpopular tactic.
Associated
Skills: Deception, Expertise: Comedy, Expertise: Gossip Columnist, Intimidation
Interaction:
You take a -2 penalty on the associated skill check when you use mockery to
counter logic and wit.
Special:
You gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill check when you use mockery to
counter a tactic with a negative audience bias, and if you win the exchange
with mockery against such a tactic, increase the ante by 1. You take a -2
penalty on the associated skill check when you use mockery to counter a tactic
with a positive audience bias, though if you succeed, reduce the ante by 1.
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.
This tactic works to deflect baiting and mockery but is less effective against
other tricks.
Associated
Skills: Intimidation, Expertise: Aristocracy, Expertise: Noble, Expertise: Rulership
Interaction:
You gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill check when you use presence to
counter baiting or mockery. You take a -2 penalty on the associated skill check
when using presence to counter allegory, emotional appeal, or red herring.
Special:
If you win an exchange with presence, you remove one -1 penalty to your determination
checks (if applicable)
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.
Associated
Skills: Deception, Expertise: Current Events, Expertise: Gossip Columnist, Expertise: Oration
Special:
You cannot use red herring as an opener.
When
using a red herring as a counter, you can choose to gain a +4 bonus on the
associated skill check. If you do so and succeed, instead of continuing and
escalating the exchange as normal, you automatically win the exchange but no
participants make any determination checks. Unlike normal, you start the next
exchange.
Rhetoric
You
use versatile debating tactics, applying advantageous rhetorical devices to
squash your opponent's arguments.
Most
of the verbal maneuvers included in this tactic are simple and forthright
linguistic devices; deceptive debating gambits are often included as part of
other tactics such as baiting, emotional appeal, mockery, or red herring.
Rhetoric is a multipurpose tactic that lacks some of the dangers of other
tactics, but doesn't offer any significant rewards either.
Associated
Skills: Expertise: Linguistics, Expertise: Oration, Expertise: Philosophy, Expertise: Politics, Persuasion
Special:
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.
Special:
When using wit, you can choose to gain a +2 bonus on the associated skill
check. If you do so and fail the associated skill check, decrease you take a -1
penalty to determination checks for the rest of the debate (just as if you had
failed a determination check). If you fail by two or more degrees, you take a -2
penalty on wit's associated skill checks for the rest of the debate.
DETERMINATION CHECK RESULTS
Determination check result vs. [winner’s determination score + 15]
Success: No
effect
Failure (one degree): The character suffers a -1 circumstance penalty to further determination
checks made during the debate
Failure (two degrees): The character takes a -2 penalty on their next tactic check and
has a -1 circumstance penalty to further determination checks made during the
debate
Failure (three degrees): The character takes a -5 penalty on their next tactic check and
has a -1 circumstance penalty to further determination checks made during the
debate
Failure (four degrees): The character is discredited
Circumstance penalties to determination checks are cumulative.
Note: These rules are adapted from verbal
duels as presented in Ultimate
Intrigue for use the the Pathfinder
Roleplaying Game.
No comments:
Post a Comment