Draft #3 of my Parley rewrite. Feedback welcome & appreciated!
Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg
Third Draft: Parley (Revised)
I’m not quite ready to give up on this approach to Parley.
We used draft 2 (https://goo.gl/oyof9n) in play quite a bit in a recent session, one that was very socially-oriented (trying to convince 20 or so enslaved Hillfolk that they freed to settle in Stonetop, and then dealing with the inevitable issues of integration).
The trigger felt much better than standard Parley. Not having to judge whether they had leverage in advance was great.
However, Paul Taliesin’s concerns about the move proved to be correct. The move really didn’t give me as the GM more structure than simply free-forming the interactions. That’s partly because of the fuzzy distinction between the 10+ “reveal what it’ll take” and the 7-9 “make a counter offer” (which many people commented on). But it’s also because the 7-9 result was so damn wide open. It really didn’t structure play like I thought it did.
So, new version: same trigger, same 10+ results, but cut the 7-9 result down to “rebuff but still engaged.”
This gets rid of the overlap between the 7-9 and 10+ results, and it relegates unforeseen complications to the 6- result, which I’m okay with.
The biggest argument I expect to see is that the 7-9 result doesn’t move things forward and results in a stalemate. I guess my counter to that would be that it’s like getting a 10+ to Hack and Slash and not rolling enough damage to drop the foe–you’re still fighting, you’ve reduce their staying power, the situation isn’t resolved. With this case, you’re still talking/arguing, but you’ve ruled out one approach, and can still find one that works.
Anyhow, as always, comments, questions, and thoughts appreciated!