Previous Persuasion     Sometimes, persuading another character (especially a PC or other strong-willed character) is simply a matter of stating your argument and hoping they choose to accept it. Against the weak-willed or those vulnerable to social pressure, however, you have additional options for persuading them to go your way. What's more, if you truly need to persuade a stronger-willed character, you can still use the persuasion rules; although you will not be able to manipulate them reliably, you can introduce negative effects that can incentivize them to comply. Depending on your reputation, personality, and philosophy, persuasion attempts might look like anything from making a logical argument, to emotionally manipulating a crowd, to making veiled threats.

    Persuasion, like other longer-term social actions, is interrupted by and incompatible with combat. It assumes two sides able to tolerate hearing each other out, at least at first; jumping straight into battle without a word always prevents all persuasion effects, no matter how competent the would-be persuader. Fortunately for social specialists, a great many "peacetime" scenarios preclude combat.

    In terms of rules, a persuasion attempt is divided into four parts: declaring a persuasion goal, declaring arguments, negation, then persuasion rounds.

Persuasion Goal

    Obviously, these rules presume at least a small degree of reluctance on the part of your "target." If they are immediately agreeable to whatever you're asking, there is no need to break out the persuasion rules to drive the point home. The goal of your persuasion can really be anything that a reasonable person could be persuaded of within one conversation - doing something for you, revealing information, carrying a message, leaving you alone, etc. Regardless of how it is phrased in-character, your persuasion goal must be able to be stated out-of-character in a short and simple sentence. It must involve the other character acting (or refraining from acting) in a certain way; you cannot use persuasion to change a character's beliefs, thoughts, or philosophy. It must involve something in the present or near-future, and cannot attempt to bind the other party for seasons or years. It must be something that is not impossible or suicidal for the target to do. The GM always has the final say regarding whether a given request can be a valid persuasion goal. Multiple persuasion attempts cannot occur in quick succession; if you have multiple related goals, try to combine them into a single succinct goal.

    Persuasion attempts can be made individually, or as a group. You can persuade an entire group or crowd at once. The same goal generally cannot be made the subject of more than one persuasion attempt, even from different characters or at different times; if your whole party wishes to persuade someone, you should all make the attempt as a group. The risk of everyone being affected by a loss is offset by certain Appeal Abilities and other social actions that can assist allies in persuasion, and alternating between competent persuaders can help prevent any single character from running out of insight for their Appeal Abilities.

    Once a persuasion attempt concerning a given subject ends, it normally cannot be re-attempted unless the situation notably changes. For example, if you use the persuasion rules to try to convince a character to heal you after a fight and you do not succeed, you cannot simply keep restarting new attempts until you succeed. However, if another battle occurs and you take more serious injuries, the situation might be different enough to qualify as a new topic. It's always up to the GM to determine how much time must go by before a similar persuasion can be attempted.

    Unless the GM decides otherwise, a failed persuasion attempt also cannot be re-attempted by a different character. For example, you cannot ask another character to persuade someone else to do the same thing you have already failed to persuade them to do. You can, however, make the first persuasion attempt as a group.

Two-Sided Persuasion

Declaring Arguments

    After your side's persuasion goal is established, you must declare arguments in order to pursue the persuasion attempt. These are the main points of why you say or imply that the target character(s) should comply with your request.

    You do not need to be exhaustive in your declared arguments. You are free to be vague or to keep true motivations private. All declared arguments are made known in-character to the other side and to any bystanders. Like the persuasion goal, each must be able to be stated out-of-character in a short and simple sentence. Arguments must be at least potentially relevant to the target character; "because I want you to" is not a valid argument, unless you are able to add some further detail of who you are, or what you can do, or why they should care. Arguments may or may not be literally "declared" - for example, a declared argument of a city guard trying to get you to leave a restricted area might be "I'm allowed to arrest you if you don't," even though this might be clearly implied by their station rather than stated verbatim. Likewise, a character might talk about their reasoning far more verbosely than the one-sentence summary used for this ruleset.

    Your total number of arguments must be 3 or fewer, unless stated otherwise by the GM. Though you are free to phrase a multitude of arguments at full length and complexity in-character, the true essence of the conversation is likely far simpler. At the very least, arguments are kept limited for the sake of gameplay; just as the combat system does not track every single footstep a character takes in a duel, so it is unnecessary to cover every point of a conversation for the persuasion system.

Negation

    An argument can be negated by the other side perfectly negating it using the content of the argument itself. For example, if a commoner's argument against sending a message for you is "the messenger guild would charge me 20 coins," paying them 20 coins will negate that argument. Arguments can also be negated if the other side has some way of knowing the argument is a lie. For example, the other side might take the opportunity to perform the lie detection social action, or they might use telepathy, or they might simply have solid evidence that the argument is a lie. This can also apply to arguments that are not deliberate lies, but the arguers are unaware is false - for example, "it would be safe for you to go to the guild," when the commoner knows that bandits have blockaded the road to that village. Whatever the in-character phrasing, the accusation of that point being untrue must be made known to the persuaders and bystanders.

    Characters cannot negate arguments (in the ruleset sense) in other ways, such as opinion or assertion; such methods are included in the later efforts during persuasion rounds.

    The GM can also declare arguments negated based on absurdity, irrelevance, or silliness. For example, the argument "this village's safety is counting on this message getting through" is valid for the goal of getting the commoner to send the message, but "the envelope smells good" or "the voices in my head tell me you should" is not.

    After removing any negated arguments, persuasion proceeds normally if at least one argument remains on each side. If one side's arguments are entirely negated, the other side automatically wins the persuasion attempt; if both sides are entirely removed, the persuasion attempt has no effect. Whether one side has more arguments than the other is not strictly relevant to the remainder of the persuasion rules. However, avoiding negation can still be beneficial, as negating via lie has consequences during persuasion rounds (see below). Additionally, certain Appeal Abilities rely on a certain type of argument being in play and not negated. Note that the remaining arguments do not need to be immediately satisfying or even pleasing to the other side; this tension is overcome by the later persuasion rounds.

    To continue the above example of the commoner, "We'll stab you if you don't carry the message" is an effective argument. However, any counter that relies on threatening the target requires a successful intimidation social action, the roll and costs for which are resolved immediately during the counter. The counter can be effective regardless of the exact amount of terror inflicted (even 0), though large amounts provide further advantages during persuasion rounds. Any use of intimidation allows the character to lie to you, even if your persuasion attempt was successful and the goal was to get them to share information; keep in mind that intimidation also makes lie detection more difficult.

    Intimidation is always impolite, and is additionally illegal in most situations if it threatens physical harm or restraint to anyone (unless responding to an illegal threat). Authorities are usually able to legally threaten harm, and adventurers may be as well if they are pursuing a legal bounty against the target. Threats of other types of harm are usually legal - you might threaten to slander someone, for example. However, these threats can more easily be negated by the GM as irrelevant (most people have 0 renown they can lose to slander, for example). In any case, the use of intimidation for persuasion almost always ruins a Benevolent reputation type if it becomes known. It is possible for both sides to threaten the other.

    Threats almost never negate arguments. A character's argument about how your request would put them at risk is not negated by introducing a new risk; only directly canceling out the first risk would negate it.

    Relevant arguments based on philosophy, culture, religion, moral opinion, or other abstract beliefs will give your target defense roll Easing during persuasion rounds, unless they are made from the perspective of their own beliefs. However, if the other side can determine that you are lying about your beliefs (or only wearing theirs for the sake of argument), that argument is automatically negated - potentially easy to do, as lie detection regarding philosophical beliefs is harder to resist. During group persuasion, the argument counts as a lie if less than 3/4 of the characters on your side hold the belief. It can therefore be difficult to make philosophical arguments as a mixed-philosophy group, unless the other side is not inclined to use lie detection.

    Declaring a philosophical argument from your own perspective can still be useful even if it would cause Easing, as certain Devotee-favored Appeal Abilities require a philosophical argument to be in play on your side. Taking the Easing also requires the other side to genuinely disagree and to make their philosophical disagreement known, which they may not wish to do if their beliefs are unpopular.

    Borrowed Conviction (Appeal) allows your side to make an argument from the perspective of another philosophy without having it negated if it is not your own. Philosophical arguments cannot be negated as lies on grounds other than insincerity, no matter how much the other side disagrees with them.

    Most arguments from belief can justifiably be termed philosophical, for the purposes of relevant Abilities and lie detection, even if they are not directly couched in the terms of a specific philosophy. For example, "You have a duty to protect the innocent from these bandits" does not explicitly identify with a single philosophy, but some philosophies clearly support or exclude the concept of duty. For example, the argument would not introduce defense roll Easing to a Methodian or Red Draconic target, but would introduce it for a Dark or Nihilist target willing to admit they reject it. The argument would also be subject to negation via lie if the arguer's own philosophy precludes the concept of duty. Of course, many such arguments can easily be tweaked into non-philosophical phrasing, if this is a wiser tactic for your side: "If you don't stand together with these people, the bandits might come after you next."

Bribery     "We'll pay you to do this" is a valid argument. However, the argument may be automatically negated if the amount is trivial. Overwhelming amounts of coin may cause a persuasion attempt to be conceded early, meaning that persuasion typically assumes a moderate amount. The GM is the final authority on whether any given coin amount is valid as an argument; they are encouraged to base this on the amount of money a person would be paid for a day as crew based on their XP Net Worth, possibly multiplied depending on risk. Typically, a valid argument from non-trivial bribery adds 1 Hindrance to the bribed side's defense rolls during persuasion rounds.

Persuasion Rounds

    After arguments are settled, three persuasion rounds occur. Each round consists of social offense and defense rolls pertaining to one side's arguments, then the same rolls for the other side. All rolls are d12s. Defense rolls are only made if the offense roll succeeds, much like combat attacks. Some Appeal Abilities have unique effects for social offense and defense rolls during persuasion specifically. Willpower cannot be used to gain a reactive +TN in persuasion offense and defense rolls.

    At the end of the three persuasion rounds, consider how many defense rolls each side failed. If the amount is the same (including 0 failures for each), the persuasion has no effect; the same occurs if the persuasion was one-sided and the target side had fewer failures. Otherwise, the side with the lesser amount of defense roll failures "wins" the persuasion attempt.

    Because it's not productive for everyone to speak all at once, only one individual at a time (per side) can make a social offense or defense roll. Characters can switch out from one offense/defense roll to the next, but multiple characters cannot attempt the same roll. A side can wait until after the offense roll (and therefore after knowing which character and Abilities they're responding to) before choosing their defending character. If there is a lengthy disagreement about who should make an offense or defense roll, the roll is considered to have failed.

    Characters who are not making the offense roll that round can perform other social actions; whispered tips and shouted remarks frequently surround important arguments. Possible actions include intimidation, rallying, short exhortations, short rebukes, and lie detection. Long exhortations, long rebukes, and slander cannot be performed during persuasion rounds. A character may only do one of these other social actions per persuasion round, and cannot perform a persuasion offense roll that round if they do so. Rolls for short exhortations and short rebukes are made first (so as to affect other subsequent rolls). One character must still make the offense roll, or the persuasion is forfeited. Any character on a side may make the defense roll, regardless of what social action they last performed.
Defense Roll Hindrance & Easing    The following Hindrance and Easing must be added to persuasion defense rolls. For each side, include as many situations as are true, with Hindrance canceling Easing (and vice versa) as normal. If an entry is marked with "(individual)", it applies only if true for the character making the defense roll that round; unmarked entries apply for any character on the side. An argument cannot be "taken back" to prevent unanticipated Hindrance or Easing; even if characters stop talking about it in-character, it is still in everyone's immediate memory.

From Reputation    These entries apply only to characters of No Rapport with the other side; for characters who get to know someone as a "real person," their prior reputation has less of an impact in persuasion.

    In-character, the social injury may appear differently depending on one's personality and philosophy, or the context of the persuasion defeat. For example, some characters may be plagued by self-doubt, realizing they lost an argument and are acting irrationally (a Confidence injury). Others might not think of themselves as defeated, but seethe with distracting rage (Acceptance). Still others may be constantly rehashing the conflict in their mind, worried what their friends will think if they don't do better next time (Security).

    Sometimes a persuasion goal may be such that it is not immediately apparent whether the other character will comply (for example, persuading a merchant captain to send word if he spots your enemy's ship tomorrow). If a strong-willed character initially intends to comply with a successful persuasion, but later decides to defy it, they must make the social endurance roll at that point; they cannot evade the roll simply by indecision.

    In two-sided persuasion, both sides have persuasion goals, so both have this effect if successful. If you made a one-sided persuasion attempt and the other side "won," there is no competing goal for you to comply with; instead, you are socially stressed by the failure and must make a d8 social endurance roll. While much less stressful than defying a competing persuasion goal, this can disincentivize overuse of persuasion against competent social opponents.

Indirect Persuasion    Indirect persuasion describes a situation where the character(s) you are trying to persuade are not the ones you are speaking to. The most common example is a public debate - perhaps the point is not to influence the character you are arguing with, but to influence a third-party audience.

    Indirect persuasion follows the same rules as above, except that the character(s) you are persuading may have the character you are actually speaking to make their offense and defense rolls. This defense roll follows the same rules as a normal social defense roll (just as if the character was defending against persuasion of themselves), except that it protects the third-party characters from persuasion instead. In some cases, both characters may have competing persuasion goals for a crowd, and each will make the crowd's defense rolls against the other side.

    Indirect persuasion may come into play for an actual scheduled debate when someone wants to hear both sides of an issue, or it may interrupt a "normal" persuasion when a more capable character sees fit to oppose your attempt.

    For the Hindrance rolls concerning reputation and Rapport, your reputation and Rapport with the third party (not the opponent making defense rolls) is considered. That is, those rules always refer to the person(s) actually being persuaded. However, the character making the defense roll may subtract from the called-for Hindrance the amount that they would add if they were persuading the same third party. For example, if your party has 12 renown and a Benevolent reputation with a crowd, they would normally add 2 Hindrance, but if a character with 16 renown and an Oppressive reputation with the crowd makes their defense rolls, they subtract 1 Hindrance.

Conceding/Leaving Early    Weak-willed characters (1-2 bWILL) will typically hear you out until the conversation ends. Stronger-willed characters are free to walk away, ignore you, plug their ears and shout, seal themselves in another room, or even attack you in the middle of the conversation. However, this essentially functions as conceding the argument. When a character acts to end the persuasion attempt early in any way, they are affected just as if they had lost the persuasion, and must either comply with your request or take the social injury and social endurance roll.

    These rules do not apply to a persuasion attempt that is interrupted by something external to the conversing characters. In such a case, the persuasion attempt is "paused" until the conversation can continue. It also does not apply when characters immediately attack each other; they must at least begin a conversation to count as ending it.

    One-sided persuasion attempts can be abandoned by the persuaders at any time, but they must make the d8 social endurance roll, and the same persuasion goal cannot then be pursued later.

Effects of Cultural Literacy     When persuading a gathered crowd, you must add 3 Hindrance in all persuasion offense rolls if you lack literacy in their culture.

Specific Applications     Persuasion rules should not be used for contexts that already have more specific rulesets elsewhere, no matter how similar to general persuasion they might seem. For example, persuasion rules should not be used for haggling with city businesses, which is its own type of social action. It should also not be used to cover begging for money, which is considered untenably gauche for adventurers without the specific training of Fundraising (Appeal).

    Certain other contexts of persuasion are possible, but have recommended additions or modifications to the persuasion rules:

Legal Trials    In every realm of Lur-Asko, arrested characters get to argue in court when accused of a crime, or hire a barrister to argue for them. Ideally, such courts prize evidence and enforce time-honored legal customs; in practice, those who can hire the best barristers often prevail. Still, a strong presence of evidence in favor of one side can add anywhere from 1 to 4 Hindrance to the other side's defense rolls. Intimidation and bribery are strictly forbidden.

    Legal trials are typically indirect persuasion of a jury, rolling against the other side's representatives. In the Declaration realms, the defendant is always innocent until proven guilty, meaning the accuser or authority is pursuing a one-sided persuasion attempt; this applies in both state-run courts and private Preamblian courts. In Macska, the defendant may be guilty by default if the offended party was a higher caste, placing the burden on the defendant for the persuasion attempt (though outsiders are not legally entitled to trials at all). Cevelky tends to have the local Vampire Lord decide cases on their own authority, though some Lords prefer to run Declaration-style trials to avoid being seen as completely arbitrary.

Haggling     City businesses cannot be legally intimidated, and cultural norms generally immunize them from being persuaded out of their goods outright. Still, they are vulnerable to a specific form of price negotiation called haggling, which is often considered an art form in certain mercantile areas. Do not use persuasion rules; instead consult the haggling social action (see below).

Intra-Party

    The closer your relationship with a character, the more difficult it is to bring the persuasion rules against them. You must add 1 Hindrance to persuasion offense rolls when persuading characters that are predominantly higher than No Rapport with you, or 2 Hindrance if any target character is High Rapport. Disagreements within the party are often simply roleplayed out, without resorting to the debate techniques and argumentative manipulation implied in the persuasion rules. Keep in mind that Rapport categories depend on the GM's perception of your characters, and are generally not protected by any rules; repeated attempts to manipulate an ally will almost certainly sour your Rapport with them.

Contradicting

    If you attempt to persuade someone in a way that contradicts a previously successful persuasion from another character, it may either be impossible, might comprise an indirect persuasion attempt against the other character (if they're still present), or may simply add Easing to the targets' defense rolls.Haggling    Though thematically similar to persuasion, haggling over prices would be quite tedious if brought to bear as a persuasion attempt whenever the party wishes to buy something. Therefore, haggling with city businesses follows a quicker ruleset: Simply make a 2d20 social offense roll. This roll is considered a persuasion social offense roll, and may include any +TNs valid for such, but there is no defense roll. Willpower cannot be used to gain a reactive +TN. If the roll succeeds, consider the margin of success, to a maximum of 20; this number becomes a percentage discount to the price of an item you are buying, or half the number becomes a percentage increase to the price of an item you are selling. For example, if you succeed by 8, you can buy the item at 92% of its normal cost, or sell it for 54%. Because a maximum of 20 margin of success is considered, haggling cannot adjust the price beyond 80% buying or 60% selling. See Buying & Selling.

     One haggling social action applies to one specific kind of item; if you have already haggled a specific item, you can buy further identical items at the same discount. Once an attempt is made, you cannot re-attempt haggling on the same item (or an identical one) from businesses in the same city, even if you return on a different day. Other characters in your party can attempt to haggle the item, however. One character may haggle on behalf of another (or, phrased another way, another character may pay for an item haggled over by another). All past haggling attempts are "reset" upon beginning a new campaign with the same characters.

    If you fail the offense roll for haggling, you waste time and are socially stressed; you must follow the same rules as if you failed a one-sided persuasion attempt, making a d8 social endurance roll.

    Because of the peculiarities of dwarven culture, haggling cannot be used in the realm of Nani; most merchants will become quite angered by the attempt.

    Any Ability or social action that inflicts terror or is based on terror will ruin a haggling attempt, and usually lead the business to involve the authorities.

    Other means of obtaining percentage modifiers to price, such as Bargain Hunting and Sales Mastery (Culture), can be used on the same item as haggling; these are considered separate processes, with haggling coming last and solely based on the price that remains after other modifiers.

Easing from Reputation     Businesses are influenced by a complex set of mercantile traditions, conventions, and market forces, which is why the social offense roll is so difficult. However, businesses are also incentivized to appear beneficent towards famous and/or beloved customers. As a result, you gain Easing in your haggling offense roll according to your renown and reputation:

    If you utilize the Easing from reputation, you cannot keep the transaction a secret; the merchants' incentives come from being able to openly claim that you do business with them.

Next