Well, I think it's unfair to use real world negotiation tactics, for the simple reason that your players might not be as good at negotiation than their characters.
Yes, you should cloak the mechanics in the flavor of real world negotiations. In this you should decide what the NPC wants, what he's willing to settle for, and what his "walking away" point is. (It's been five years since I took a negotiations class, and my jargon has gone by the wayside, so I use colloquial terms.)
But you should also remember the rules of Diplomacy (the skill). The NPC's initial attitude should influence their Negotiation spectrum - an Unfriendly/Hostile NPC will likely not be willing to settle for anything less than what he wants, and walk away insulted if they offer less. But if the PCs can change his attitude (again, via Diplomacy) to Indifferent, then the NPC might be willing to settle for something. If they change it to Friendly, then the NPC's walk away point is likely to be within what the PCs are willing to offer (that is, the PCs will be able to make a Diplomacy check to convince him to take whatever they're offering.) And if the PCs shift the attitude to Helpful, I'd rule that the NPC simply accepts what the PCs offer - so long as it poses no danger to the NPC, or is an otherwise easy pill to swallow.
Can you give us an example of what you're actually negotiating over?
D&D negotiation is difficult because while I may studder and tie my tongue in the simplest of words, my PC may have a +84 diplomacy with matching Sense Motive checks that should make the harshest of negotiations seem like a walk in the park.
We want PC's to RP it out but also *have* to find a way for the dice to matter too..
The way I prefer, as a player, is for the PC to RP it out as best they can and then roll the dice. The dice actually determine the outcome with the possibility of a "good idea' thrown in by the PC adding a small bonus, if applicable.
You, the DM, know the "won't budge" points of the NPC's from the "we'll slide on this" points. High enough rolls can do alot- but don't get caught up in the PC's arguments too much. Set the DC's before hand try to stick to them regardless of what the RP is.
i.e. don't let the pc with a total roll+bonus of +5 out-maneuver you in word play RP so that he still gets away with the negotiation. If you let "Player skill" over ride "character skill" then the silver tongued ones will ignore the diplomacy skill altogether ;p
As players we tend to want our well thought out ideas to trump the die when we roll badly, and good rolls to trump bad ideas when we roll well.
As the DM, Keep it consistent :) The DC is the DC regardless of how well the Player flaps his lips.
-S
The way I prefer, as a player, is for the PC to RP it out as best they can and then roll the dice. The dice actually determine the outcome with the possibility of a "good idea' thrown in by the PC adding a small bonus, if applicable.
Thats usually what I do. I GM far more than I am a player and all my players are way better actual negotiators than me.
I solve this by have a determined out come or set of options that I want to happen as a result of the negotiation. This end result is always in furtherance of the plot/story rather than necessarily anything the NPC wants.
For example, and I am not familiar with the Kingmaker AP, if the PCs have to negotiate so that Faction X will attack Faction Y, before any rolls are made we roleplay it out. If they do a good job, I have them maybe make a couple of "ghost" rolls and on we go. If they do a terrible job I back that up with some rolls that will dictate the outcome more than poor role play. (Not a slam on anyone, it happens sometimes, self included.) If that doesn't get the PCs what they want, as the GM I inform them of the consequences and maybe they need to spend some time fixing the problem.
Back to my example, if Faction X now adamantly refuses to attack Faction Y, but that's what the plot calls for, maybe the PCs need to do a side quest to retrieve Leader X's lost dog or something and we can re-do the negotiations with some bonuses.
I think the ultimate advice that I can give, is knowing what you, the GM, want to happen. If, though, by the PCs choices/rolls/roleplay takes the plot off course then so be it. I dont think its so much about being to hard or easy on the players, its about, in my mind, keeping things moving. If the PC's seemingly breeze through a negotiation, awesome, lets go. If the PCs fail at it, cool lets go off the rails for a while and see if we can come back to it.
/end ramble
MD
|
Here is how I resolve things of this nature - been doing this for many year in this fashion and have proven effective (for us).
Step 1. Determine ahead of time the level of resistance a particular NPC has to the ideas wanting to be address. Like other said - determine their willingness and their "walking away". Have a general idea of what the goals/motivations of the NPC would be so as to better and more believably have a desired effect in mind.
Step 2. Have the negotiating player roll a Charisma check. (D20 +/- Cha modifier) with a DC of 15 to 25 depending on how much of a hard-a$$ i've determined the person to be and judging by any other possible reasons. (usually 15) This Charisma check sets the initial attitude of the person. Missing the DC leaves the NCP as INDIFFERENT. Beating DC moves it one step in the PCs favor. Beating DC by 10 moves the initial attitude two steps. Missing the DC by more than 5 lowers the attitude one step. Missing DC by 10 moves it two steps lower.
Step 3. Place 6 equal sided dice (use D6s) and line them up in a row with a small space between each one - place a D4 in the center of this row. (this is a visual meter of success/failure)
Step 3. Negotiate. Allow the player to talk. Sure he/she can just say - "I want to just use my diplomacy skill" in which case roll a D20. He may instead wish to ropleplay and actually speak for the character. In this case - award a +1 to +5 bonus to diplomacy based on how moving or convincing the player is. Don't give him a penalty to the roll regardless just for making some player generated faux pas....that's just bad form considering the player took the time to try to roleplay - don't penalize him because the player forgot the NPCs name or stuttered or something like that - it'll only serve to discourage your players from roleplaying in the future. Feel free to add a penalty if the player is obviously being onery towards the NPC w/ obvious threats, name-calling, ridicule etc, however.
Step 4. Using the DC for diplomacy based on initial attitude, have the player roll a Diplomacy check - w/ any roleplaying bonus. If successful, move the D4 one dice to the right. Move one die to the left if failure.
Step 5. Respond to the player accordingly as the NPC retorts or renegotiates. (i.e. in the case of success. "I believe you have a point, good friend, but I still have certain doubts that this is the best course of action for my people - how are we assured to have security for our trade caravan?" or in the case of failure. "I disagree. I do not think that our people could ever benefit from such an arrangement. Perhaps doubling your offer may entice me.")
Step 6. Repeat Steps 4 - 5 until the D4 has jumped all the way to one end of the measure or the other - indicating complete failure or success. Each time you repeat these steps is essentially "further negotiations" - giving the player to add more ideas, alter the ideas, reword his/her assurances or negoatiating ploys. Again giving bonus to successes based on his/her words, their believability, valid or creative points made, etc.'
Step 7. After success or failure, summarize the NPCs acceptance or decline of the offer with whatever you feel is appropriate.
By doing this as a series of successes or failures, it removes the often-player hated means of relying on a single D20 roll to procure and outcome of something the may be quite significant. Allowing bonuses to the many checks based on player roleplaying and involvement gives a good incentive to roleplay in character, and be involved - as it would significantly play a role in the success of the number of checks - since success is gained by several rolls instead of one - the chance that the modifier for good roleplaying is really helpful is quite high.
Here is a recent summary of this in action at a game I ran a few weeks ago.
(some kingmaker spoilers included)
Dilema: The PCs wished to sell a major magic item that benefitted kobolds only - that they procured from the module "Crown of the Kobold King" that I added into the Kingmaker campaign. They were wanting a healthy reimbursement from the Sootscale kobold tribe whom are on-going trade allies and neighbors to the PC's kingdom.
Player of Grand Diplomat rolled Charisma check as he sat down w/ Mikmek - their political liaison to the Sootscales. I determined that the kobolds really wanted the crown and were at least neutral if not friendly to the PCs so I made the initial Charisma check DC 17. Player rolled a 9 w/ a +5 bonus and failed. - - so initial attitude remained indifferent.
The player began with asking for 10 BP and a permanent +2 bonus to Economy (out of character mechanics) in game this was a trade of resources from the kobolds silver mine, and aid by the kobolds to help build a road in the hex between their kingdoms, and a permanent stipend from the river taxes they charge. (the kobolds have yet to be pressured by the bandit council to allow free travel)
The player was quite convincing - so I offered a +2 bonus to the DC but rolled poorly and even the bonus wasn't enough. I moved the d4 1 space to the left and responded "What you ask is a great cost for such a bauble. I do not think my chief would agree to such."
The player retorted - "I suppose this is true. Perhaps if I lowered the initial cost up front - I would use some of my own resources for the building of that road." (ooc: I will accept 8BP and the +2 to Eco). Player rolled again - due to his creative renegotiating, I awarded a +4 bonus to the next check which he nailed. I moved the die one stage to the right.
The kobold responded - "How long does this stipend need to be in existance? Is this for 1 year term".
Player: "Indefinitely". I said he would never agree to such a term this is a lot of cost in the long run. How about 1 year.
The player said, "Perhas a term of 5 years".
I had the player roll again - with no bonus as that was still a long time to pay for the crown. But he still rolled high and nailed it. I moved the dice one more square to the right (he needed only one more to succeed).
Mikmek said "I will agree to the 5 year term, but perhaps lower your initial need" (ooc: to 7BP up front). Other wise perhaps 3 years."
The player said "5 years is non negotiable - but we'll accept the up front cost"
I told player to roll again w/ +2 bonus. He unfortunately failed, I moved the dice one to the left.
Mikmek responded "You see - we feel that 5 years is a long time to pay a stipend on what we earn for our piece of land. If you lower it to 3 years or lower the amount of stipend and you will further convince me."
Player "Okay - we'll lower it to 4 years." I had the player roll w/ no bonus. They succeeded. Now moving the dice one place to the right - now only one step from winning.
Mikmek: Hmmm, I will consider this and go back to Chief Sootscale with your offer. Though I am not sure what he will say to these terms."
Player after discussing it with other players and knowing they're are close to winning this, said: "Okay - we will agree to only 3 years and the already agreed upon up front cost - but we wont give the crown to you until the road is finished - at which time we will begin the 3 year term of trade and hand over the crown."
I had him roll one more time w/ +4 bonus and succeeded. Moving the dice to outside the meter of dice winning the negotiation.
Mikmek "On behalf of Chief Sootscale I have the authority to agree to this deal and do hereby accept the terms."
In this way it is similar to a skill challenge of 4th edition D&D. But I've been doing these types of multiple success/failures for years. Including trap disarming, lock opening, and espeically roleplaying based skills.
Robert
This has actually worked for me in Kingmaker. Several bandits, when faced with the "join us, we'll pay you, and you can keep your life" bargain, chose the obvious option. But the PCs aren't taking their loyalty (lack thereof) into account. So far, one has run away in combat, and all have kept vital information about the Stag Lord to themselves. Only one of the six they've captured has shown any loyalty other than protecting his own skin and turning a profit.
This has actually worked for me in Kingmaker. Several bandits, when faced with the "join us, we'll pay you, and you can keep your life" bargain, chose the obvious option. But the PCs aren't taking their loyalty (lack thereof) into account. So far, one has run away in combat, and all have kept vital information about the Stag Lord to themselves. Only one of the six they've captured has shown any loyalty other than protecting his own skin and turning a profit.
Yup. In my group, we call such NPCs "Sheldons" (after one NPC - Sheldon Doyle - who totally screwed the party over on a deal and then when we caught up to him actually weaseled his way through the explanation so effectively we had to laugh and let him live.) Happs Bydon has become the new Sheldon for the group, having been released the first time the PCs fought him, then later encountered as a random encounter, and eventually recruited to be the kingdom's Spymaster.
Preparation is key to running realistic negotiations that you'll be happy with. Determine the following things ahead of time:
1) NPC goals for the negotiation. What does he want?
2) NPC "redlines". What outcomes can he absolutely not accept? Do not set a DC to achieve these outcomes - no matter what the PC's Diplomacy score is and what the roll is, the negotiator will not agree.
3) NPC "minimum acceptable results". What is the least he can accept as his part of the deal?
4) NPC negotiating authority. Is the NPC fully authorized to negotiate or does he need to go back to someone else for approval/further instructions?
5) NPC neediness. How much does he "need" this deal? Is he desperate for a deal or willing to walk away without one?
6) NPC negotiating style. Is he a smooth operating consensus builder or a hard-nosed competitor? Does he lie easily or is he brutally honest?
When you have all that worked out, you might want to throw in a couple of other things for fun:
7) Does he have any weaknesses or is there anything that can be thrown in to a deal that could give positive modifiers to the eventual Diplomacy skill check if the PCs use them? For example, can he be bribed or blackmailed, does he like to drink too much, is he easily distracted by attractive women (or men), etc.
8) Does he have any "buttons" that the PCs could inadvertently push that would give negative modifiers? For example, would he be offended by an offered bribe or by attempts to get him drunk, is he sensitve and quick to take offense at perceived insults, does he have any prejudices against races/genders/ethnicities/sexual orientations/whatever?
In the end, it will come down to a Diplomacy skill check, or perhaps multiple skill checks, to resolve the negotiation. Let the players roleplay as much or as little as they want, and reward good RP or ideas with bonuses (generally minor), then make the rolls and let the dice fall where they may.
One house rule that I use in formal negotiations is that I add the target's Diplomacy ranks as well as his Cha to the target DC to reflect the fact this isn't a one way communication - there's another side to the negotiation also doing its best to move things in their direction. You can't have the NPC make a roll to determine the PC attitudes, but you should make NPC skills count for something.
I just ran it off-the-cuff. The PCs had made a peace deal with an indigenous tribe of creatures; they began using a source of wealth on their lands, and came to negotiate a trade agreement as well as land claims
Their leader was very, very ambitious, and asked for a ridiculously huge chunk of the land to be theirs, high-balling the offer and expecting to be argued down to a compromise; the PCs were morbidly offended by this. They haggled with strong threatening overtones, and narrowly avoided deciding to commit genocide on the creatures because they seemed greedy, resulting in the creatures being holed up in their hex, with the surrounding territory claimed by PCs. They've gotten a little frosty because of that deal -- they still have the PCs to thank for saving them earlier on, and they remain independent, but they realize they were almost given the ultimatum of 'join or die.'
For now they're tip-toeing around the PCs' kingdom and keeping a low profile, which isn't helped in the least by the fact that a splinter group is roving around the region trying to stir up as much trouble as possible.