Link, Leverage, Language

A social procedure

I am a firm believer that RPGs do not need rules for social interaction. Conversations and social interactions are amongst the best things to leave ‘ruleless’ (imho) because many GMs are equipped to simulate them better than rules. However…

Sometimes we need a fall-back framework. And sometimes our players need more guidance on how to do things. I’ve had players at my table who get stuck when they want to convince an NPC to do something, because people are a kind of puzzle they struggle with. As a GM, sometimes I’m not sure how an NPC is going to react to an attempt to convince them, and my answer feels… imprecise. That’s where this new framework comes in.

It’s kind of like the Tools, Talent, and Time concept (something I love), but it’s about framing social situations and outcomes.

Meet Link, Leverage, and Language.

---

Link, leverage, language

There are 3 aspects that affect your ability to convince another creature or faction to act in full or partial accordance with your proposals.

Link: Something you and the other party have in common. Either a pre-existing relationship or some common ground: “We’re both from Alturia.” If you have stuff that pushes you apart more than pulls you together, you’ve got no Link. Could you lie to form a link? Sure, at your own risk.

Leverage: You have something they want or can make a realistic threat against something they care about. This can take all sorts of forms but in essence, you need a strategic form of motivation to apply to the creature or faction.

Language: You can communicate with ease and make reasonable requests of the creature or faction. Language isn’t just ‘actual language’: if you’re talking with a merchant and you have no experience in business, you don’t speak the language.

Total up how many of these the PCs have.

---

Outcomes

The creature/faction responds based on how many of the 3 aspects you have.

If you have 1, they either:

• Won’t work with you.

• Will work with you, but at a horrible cost.

• Will work with you, but are going to stab you in the back at the worst possible time.

If you have 2, they either:

• Will work with you, for a price.

• Will work with you, but will change sides for better deal if one appears.

• Won’t work with you directly, but will offer you something else that’s a bit helpful.

If you have 3, they either:

• Will work with you.

• Will work with you for a price, but offer unwavering loyalty in exchange for the price.

• Won’t work with you directly (because their hands are tied) but will be as helpful as possible otherwise.

---

Classic edge-case examples

A powerful party may seek to gain the compliance of a weaker group through threatening violence (leverage). If that leverage is all the party has, but their threat is credible, the weaker party will likely comply but:

• The cost might be the weaker group spreading the word about the party.

• The weaker group might plot revenge or get someone much tougher involved later on.

Likewise, a party with all 3 aspects might make an unreasonable demand. This compromises the Language aspect: part of being able to speak with another creature/faction is being able to ask for reasonable things.

• Those mercenaries aren’t going to undertake a suicide mission for you: they aren’t stupid, and you just failed to speak their language.

• That merchant won’t accept a ridiculous price because you aren’t speaking sense any more.

---

Wrap-up

That’s it! Next time you’re struggling to arbitrate social stuff but you don’t want to be rolling dice or playing some kind of mini-game: think Link, Leverage, and Language.