How to Handle Legal Dramas

[John Kim]

The sharks-with-lasers thread is getting pretty excessive, so I've decided to split off a particular subtopic:  The question is, how do you game a legal drama in a satisfying way?  Bear in mind, different people may find different approaches satisfying.  

In the prior thread, I said that I thought a more abstracted approach (like D&D combat, say) would not be very satisfying to me.  This is because the legal arguments themselves often have moral and ethical content -- unlike, say, choice of sword swing.  

John and Marco, it seems to me that the principle of Fortune-in-the-middle addresses all these concerns, given a willingness for Fortune to be involved at all. You guys seem to be stuck in a kind of "the dice say it all" vs. "the dice are irrelevant" outlook, in this discussion. (Or maybe I'm not reading you guys right, I dunno.)  

I'm not sure.  Could you give some examples?  As I understand Fortune-in-the-Middle, it would work like this:  I roll for the success of my legal argument.  I get a critical success.  This means that I then have to narrate the brilliant argument that my PC swayed the jury with.  The problem is, what if I the player can't come up with a brilliant argument to match the roll?  

Now that I think about it, we've had several legal issues come up in my Vinland campaign.  The Icelandic-descended Vinlanders retain their democratic legal tradition.  Now, I'm using RuneQuest, so what I have done is allow Orate rolls to determine the eloquence of the point -- but eloquence is only one factor in the resolution.   I also allow a Law-speaking roll to understand how this interacts with the rest of the law.  

To take an example: At the last Althing, there was a vote over creating a position of Commander for the Commonwealth, to command a small force of 60 men offered by Hring Styrsson.  The Vinlanders have never had an army before.  Kjartan (a PC) decided to be the first to propose the new law.  However, he rolled badly -- I think on his Lawspeaking.  I was stuck for a little while.  Eventually I decided that the law as he proposed it had a loophole, which made the position of Commander more powerful and/or independent than he intended.  Based on this, I came up with how the various godi they knew reacted to his proposal.

I guess you could cite this as a successful use of abstract mechanics.  However, I felt it was problematic.  What happened was that we brought up the whole question of the scope of the commander's power.  i.e. How free a hand did he have, vs how controlled by the council of godi?  This is very important since the first Commander was going to be another PC, Skallagrim the Dark.  I guess the roll made me think, and I came up with an issue.  But I'd feel really put on the spot if I had to come up with this sort of thing frequently.  

However, the Hero Wars (now 'Quest) system offers a phenomenal opportunity for both to be involved, dynamically. We played many an Orlanthi legalistic wrangle or Orlanthi-Lunar status-wrangle using its Extended Contest system, which as far as I can tell, captures the best sides of both committed emotional role-playing and the "jumping bean" element of Fortune.  

OK, could you give an example?

[Marco]

Yah. I second that. I would like to see an example. I suspect that even with FitM there'd need to be y'know, actual engaging, swaying, suprising, and dramatic arguments commin' out of somebody's mouth.

But really what we need is a thread to discuss Lawyers with SHARKS on their heads.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Actually, John, what you're describing is Fortune-at-the-Start, which to my knowledge is pretty rare in role-playing - frankly because, as people are perceiving, it's boring.

The Middle bears close watching.

Njarl, Callacht, and Rhiannon are engaged in a dispute with a tribesfellow, Hrothulf, backed up with his cronies Helmgut and Grim. It's all about whether the two cronies are guilty of intimidating and threatening to assault a girl named Aething, or conversely, whether Njarl is guilty of overstepping his shamanic bounds in scaring the crap out of them. This is a serious clan/community matter and the elder/judge sorts are listening carefully; also, it's hardly a modern courtroom and all the issues are jumbled up together (i.e., there're no "charges").

The following example is stripped of all but the most relevant mechanics; I'm not going to go into "who goes first" stuff - it is covered in the rules, but isn't relevant.

Hrothulf goes first, using his Impress Guys ability; he's saying, "Hey, it's all in good fun, the girl's not hurt, no blood, no foul." He augments it with a roll of his Warrior Rep ability, getting +4 to his score of 10w. The two cronies act as followers with their respective abilities, at 17 apiece.

OK, Impress Guys at 14w is 34 Action Points, plus the points from the followers, for 34 + 34 = 68 Action Points. That's his starting pool. See how I've already stated what Hrothulf is up to? I've used out-of-character references ("no blood no foul") as well as in-game role-playing (not transcribed) at a general level. I have not stated anything about what's happened, but I have described what's going on. The difference is crucial.

Our heroes decide to act as a group with shared goal, and given Calliacht's filibustering abilities (total = 5w), some augmenting abilities, and Rhiannon's augmenting, she gets a good 35 Action Points. Njarl decides to keep his pool separate rather than adding to Calliacht, but he has a small pool, at 22 or something like that (Kolati shamans aren't real good at debate). Similar generalized "this is what we're up to" role-playing occurs (in fact, it was simultaneous with that described above). Looking at the size of the Action Point pools, we role-play some interactions that show that our heroes are a bit outmatched.

Hrothulf bids a solid 20 points to start - my cue for more role-playing, giving a good impression of the guy's demeanor and voice patterns. The players look non-plussed; that's a big bid. "Starting out strong," says one. I mention how it's the kind of opening that impresses the warrior-types in the listeners.

Calliacht goes with a reasoned defense, using her lawyer-ly abilities. Time to roll! Calliacht rolls against her ability, and fails (shit!); Hrothulf rolls and succeeds - at this point, it looks like our heroine is about to lose 20 whole points from her pool, right off the top! She looks glumly at her single Hero Point, which given the rolls numerical values, will still lose her points even if she spends it to bump her roll to a victory.

No problem, says Njarl's player, and exploits the rule that folks on the same side can just give one another Action Points. He does. Calliacht loses the exchange, loses the 20 points, but ends up with 2 extra because Njarl just gives them to her. In game terms, basically, Calliacht got hammered in the debate (in terms of good-old-boy vs. lawyer-widow's rhetoric), probably because all the warrior guys were slapping each other on the back while she was trying to talk, but Njarl's scary shaman presence dampens things so that the victory doesn't really help Hrothulf any. Njarl's player has great fun role-playing how nastily Njarl just looms there, or picks at his fetishes, or whatever.

Time for a new round. This time, Calliacht's side bids first ...

One point is that, exchange by exchange, loss or gain of points means nothing until it's all over. That loss of 20 Action Points looked bad at the time, only, and should Calliacht win (by driving Hrothulf to 0 Action Points or below), then it "wasn't as bad as it looked."

The other, main point is that the role-playing and the rolls are synthesized - we know what each character is up to prior to each roll, but we don't know how well it worked or even whether the words had a chance to leave the characters' mouths. This is established by role-playing the actions from their initiation after the roll. Again, prior to the roll, we know what's up, and after the roll, the sequence of in-game events is role-playing from the beginning.

Hence (to take it to physical combat for a moment) your spear-thrust fails to hurt the guy, not because you "missed," but because he grabbed the spear, yanked it, and kicked you in the crotch. You didn't "announce your spear attack," you just stated that that's what you were up to. He didn't "announce his kick," he just stated that he was getting inside. If you'd succeeded, he'd never have gotten there, again, established retroactively, after the rolls.

And then even after the roll, we still have Hero Points to spend and/or Action Points to shift around, which requires more (and much more specific) role-playing to understand. Here's where stuff like "But my buddy throws a rock!" or "The kick landed awkwardly" can totally reverse a perceived outcome.

Whoops, back to debating rather than spears and crotch-kicks. The general statements, pre-roll, concern the angle of an argument's attack, and whether it appeals to fairness or cronyism or what-have-you. The post-roll statements concern who got their points in most effectively and how, and in what order. Both out-of-character and in-character role-playing are scattered liberally in both steps, but tuned to the general vs. specific, "what's up" vs. "what happened" context for each step.

Well, let's see if that makes any sense. Questions, comments?

Best,
Ron

P.S. My account is actually a pretty butchered version of the Hero Wars rules, but the principles are intact.

[John Kim]

Actually, John, what you're describing is Fortune-at-the-Start, which to my knowledge is pretty rare in role-playing - frankly because, as people are perceiving, it's boring.  

Actually, my example was not at all boring in the game, at least to us.  It was pretty interesting.  My problem was that it was a lot of effort on my part to interpret the die rolls in a way that made sense, and that the system had very little to do with the results.  That is, I don't think I could sustain what I did for a campaign.  

My example was perhaps incomplete.  (I have a http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/vinland/campaign/sessions/session36.html">session summary at my website, but it's probably tough to jump into the middle of.)  Actually, as I read it I realize that there were two Whimsy Cards played on the results of the speech, which certainly complicated things.  

The position of Commander had already been debated in the back rooms earlier in the Althing.  We had played out a long conversation on the subject.  At the point where I came in, Kjartan's intended action was just to be the one who formalized the law, creating the position as previously discussed.  Based on the failure, I threw in the complication regarding the scope of the Commander's power.  (i.e. As proposed, the Commander was more independent than expected, which was a mistake on Kjartan's part.  However, this illuminated disagreements among the godi over how they felt on the issue.  

In game terms, basically, Calliacht got hammered in the debate (in terms of good-old-boy vs. lawyer-widow's rhetoric), probably because all the warrior guys were slapping each other on the back while she was trying to talk, but Njarl's scary shaman presence dampens things so that the victory doesn't really help Hrothulf any. Njarl's player has great fun role-playing how nastily Njarl just looms there, or picks at his fetishes, or whatever.  

Time for a new round. This time, Calliacht's side bids first ...

One point is that, exchange by exchange, loss or gain of points means nothing until it's all over. That loss of 20 Action Points looked bad at the time, only, and should Calliacht win (by driving Hrothulf to 0 Action Points or below), then it "wasn't as bad as it looked."  

Hmmm.   I think I see what you are saying.  However, from your description, this really isn't what I am looking for.  

What I am interested in is the internal workings of the debate.  For example, based on the characters involved, it might not be convincing to me that Njarl's looming would positively affect the case.  Based on the mechanics, Njarl's player knows that he has to help out Calliacht's side.  However, only I as GM know the personalities of those involved.  He might decide to role-play an action -- such as looming -- which he guesses will help.  However, the affect of that should (in my preference) depend on who he is looming at and what they are thinking.  

I'm not sure what the difference here is.  One thing is that in my example, a number of the godi were established NPCs over months of play.  The PCs have been fairly continuously interacting with them.  While I could have that other godi determined the result, but for narrative purposes I thought it was important that the godi whom they knew were representative of the council in general.

[Ian Charvill]

What I am interested in is the internal workings of the debate.  For example, based on the characters involved, it might not be convincing to me that Njarl's looming would positively affect the case.  Based on the mechanics, Njarl's player knows that he has to help out Calliacht's side.  However, only I as GM know the personalities of those involved.  He might decide to role-play an action -- such as looming -- which he guesses will help.  However, the affect of that should (in my preference) depend on who he is looming at and what they are thinking.  

Ron might have a more precise answer to this - it's his example afterall - but in Hero Wars the character's personality can be represented by abilities, and those abilities can be used to affect the rolls and exchanges.

For example - if the character had "Not Afraid of that Dumb Shaman 17", that could be used to augment the roll based on said shaman being on the other side.

HTH

[Marco]

The sample is a good sell for the Hero Wars rules--but not what'd do me for a lawyer game.

It's a good way to handle a debate, no doubt.

I think it'd work for debates that I didn't have much of a stake in (i.e. a purely legalistic exercise). And the role-playing works for one guy looming and another guy posturing--which is fine (I do see John's point as well about an unintended consequence--but clearly the system doesn't really represent that, which is fine).

For the really interesting court dramas, though, what gets me involved is how *I* change sides from stage to stage--or how *I'm* impressed with the case as it evolves. The system won't do *that*--but I don't think any system'll do *that.* So that might be as good as its likely to get.

-Marco

[John Kim]

The sample is a good sell for the Hero Wars rules--but not what'd do me for a lawyer game.
...
For the really interesting court dramas, though, what gets me involved is how *I* change sides from stage to stage--or how *I'm* impressed with the case as it evolves. The system won't do *that*--but I don't think any system'll do *that.* So that might be as good as its likely to get.  

This is roughly my feeling as well.  I'd take another example from my game: it wasn't a trial, but it was a legal issue.  

Weregeld is legal reparation for having killed someone -- the equivalent of a civil suit for damages.  As I have interpretted the Icelandic tradition, weregeld is supposed to be purely economic.  That is, you pay the relatives based purely on the economic value of that person (i.e. a large amount for a poor person, and a huge amount for a rich person).  In theory, it doesn't matter who started the fight -- though it may in practice influence the judges or arbiter.

Skallagrim (a PC) had recently had to pay weregeld for a warrior he killed in a fight started by a madman.  This was a huge burden on him since he was just starting up his own household.  In one scene, he visited his new godi, Vignir the Bald.  In conversation, he complained that the principle seemed fundamentally broken.  Vignir responded that he sympathized, but explained the reason.  

Vignir: The problem is, everyone will always say that their side was in the right in a fight.  Who started a fight is always a murky issue.  If we judge by only who struck the first blow, then that rewards being insulting and abrasive.  Thus, the traditional answer is that it is not government's role to judge who was right or wrong in a fight -- only who killed who.  However, there are people who would say that the government should take a moral stance and involve itself in these fights.  

This actually changed Skallagrim's mind -- and perhaps the player's.  He hadn't thought about this as the government taking sides in clan fights, and when put that way he shied away from the idea.  In general, this was a valuable insight into how the Vinlanders think about law and government, I felt.  I can't see how it would retain that power if abstracted out in some way -- or if Skallagrim's reaction were determined by die rolls.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Where you guys get the idea that the player's outlook isn't involved is beyond me.

At any point in the scene we role-played (or in other Extended Contests), a player might have decided to switch sides, because he or she found the other side's argument convincing personally. After all, Njarl might have pulled a turnaround by providing Hrothulf with the Action Points, not Calliacht, say at the bidding stage, or later if Hrothulf got an unlucky roll in the next exchange. The player has full control over this, subject to exactly the thematic or rhetorical concerns that you describe in the Vignir example.

Perhaps you're not seeing, or perhaps I wasn't clear about it, that the substantive content of the debate is established through play. That is provided through plain role-playing, just as in your example, John. What's different is that the role-playing is organized and "bounced" by the rules process. What the Action Points and dice do is (a) permit pacing and windows of announcement of that content at different levels of abstraction and (b) determine, in part, how effective they are on the conflict's resolution.

I must clarify, for those who aren't familiar with Hero Wars (and Sorcerer, and Alyria, and a few others), that dice do not carry the content. "My debate roll vs. your debate roll - who wins - OK, you do, so what did you say?" is not what I'm describing.

Hero Wars is rife with personality abilities - when Njarl's player contributes with a given ability, it has to be opposed by someone else's ability, which in this case was probably Hrothulf's arrogance. I didn't explain the actual rolls in my example, but I see now that it makes more sense when one understands that most rolls in this game are opposed by very, very specific things. Furthermore, even though everyone uses a single ability as the foundation for his or her Action Point pool, it is perfectly all right to switch the abilities used for the rolls from exchange to exchange - if one of the characters, for instance, had decided to buffet a member of the other side, the Extended Contest in progress is neither negated nor over-ridden.

I'm beginning to think, however, that I'm dealing with a degree of skepticism that isn't amenable to discussion. I've been through this a lot with explaining Sorcerer, so at this point, I'm willing to say, "Fine. Check out the game if you're interested," and not sweat about it.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Where you guys get the idea that the player's outlook isn't involved is beyond me.

At any point in the scene we role-played (or in other Extended Contests), a player might have decided to switch sides, because he or she found the other side's argument convincing personally. After all, Njarl might have pulled a turnaround by providing Hrothulf with the Action Points, not Calliacht, say at the bidding stage, or later if Hrothulf got an unlucky roll in the next exchange. The player has full control over this, subject to exactly the thematic or rhetorical concerns that you describe in the Vignir example.  

But the whole contest is purely a question of which side different characters fall on.  Your example is of someone who is not a principle in the legal action changing sides.  But suppose, for example, the judge or the prosecution change their mind because the argument was convincing.  If all the characters decide based on how convincing they find the described argument, then what purpose do the die rolls serve?  

I must clarify, for those who aren't familiar with Hero Wars (and Sorcerer, and Alyria, and a few others), that dice do not carry the content. "My debate roll vs. your debate roll - who wins - OK, you do, so what did you say?" is not what I'm describing.
...
I'm beginning to think, however, that I'm dealing with a degree of skepticism that isn't amenable to discussion. I've been through this a lot with explaining Sorcerer, so at this point, I'm willing to say, "Fine. Check out the game if you're interested," and not sweat about it.  

Ron, I have checked out both Hero Wars and Sorcerer.  I own both of them and have read them carefully.  I have played in a convention game of Hero Wars, and I seriously considered using it for my current campaign.  (I have not played Sorcerer at all yet, but I also haven't commented on it.)  In any case, the topic of the thread is not Hero Wars.  It is about legal drama games.  If you find the standard Hero Wars mechanics completely satisfactory for such a game, then great -- you have the problem solved.  

However, as I said in the start of the thread, the same solution may not necessarily work for everyone.  At some point, I would like to be able to say:  No, I don't think that's what I am looking for in legal drama.  Do people have any other ideas about how to handle it?

[Marco]

Woah. Ron.

I don't dig your solution *totally* and that's a "degree of skepticism not amenable to discussion"? Yer usually better'n that.

John Kim hit it right on the head. If what you have your character say doesn't change my mind and we're still rolling we have a tactical exercise--but the actual content that engages me isn't there yet.

Edited to add: I think it's a great way to run a debate or court-room drama systemically. No question.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Characters minds are changing through the debate - NPC's anyway.  That is what is resolved by the outcome of the contest.

It is *possible* that a PC would bring a suit and then be persuaded against it - but in practical terms, almost nobody makes such a public challenge unless they are thoroughly committed to their position, for whatever reason.

Marco says:

John Kim hit it right on the head. If what you have your character say doesn't change my mind and we're still rolling we have a tactical exercise--but the actual content that engages me isn't there yet.

I sort of agree.  As above, for a legal challenge or court case it is necessarily a public debate and it is the public opinion that is being manipulated by the rolls, not the players or characters thoughts on the matter.

It may be possible to establish mechanics which would determine that a PC was 'Persuaded' regarldess of the players thoughts on the matter, i.e. that could be sort of like a loss condition of losing the argument.  In fact I can see a lot of use for such a thing, but the idea has foundered by most people legitimate objection to having their character behaviour mechanically controlled.

What I think would be a better initial approach is to attach the mechanics to real descriptions - so for example, if you were playing in a setting generated by Aria, you would know what sorts of goals and values the collective identity of the area is presumed to possess - frex, the Just Tyranty archetype is listed as possessing the Orientations: Tradition, Conviction and Prevention.  This could be incorporated into a system which reinforced arguments mechanically depending on their topical content: i.e. an argument that is supportive of tradition gets a bonus while an argument for innovation gets a penalty.  Or, an argument proposing a risk be taken is by default weaker than an argument that a risk should be avoided.  In the above case of the social archetype, an argument that was agaionst risk, in accordance wityh tradition, and vehemently argued would carry the most bonusses.

Of course, much fun can be had figuring out how to phrase or present arguments in such a manner as they accord to the established social values.  An argument caould be advanced that anothers claim may have appeared to be in accordance with tradition, but was in fact not due to reason XYZ.  Where I think HW has value is that it has a remarkable facility to allow this transition from argument of principle or conviction to mechanical result.

[pete_darby]

I think you also have to  dettermine at the outset what sort of trial you want to run. Most TV trials are one of two types, that I'll call the Perry Mason and the Ally McBeal.

The Perry Mason trial is essentially a framework for a standard mystery: Mason is called to defend a palpably innocent defendant, and can only defend him by proving the guilt of the true perpertrator.

In this case, the game mechanics of the trial are, by and large irrelevant; the meat of the game is in the investigation.

In the Ally McBeal, the truth of the case tends to be a matter of interpretation, and while the judge may be in a position to make a ruling based on a case of law (which, once more, would be largely established in out of court scenes of research , interview and negotiation), the final decision in most TV episodes rests with a judgement by the jury.

Unless you have enough spare players to form a jury, I think you have to have a mechanical representation for the opinion of the jury.

And, for preference, I'd run it with Hero Wars / Quest. But I'd like to see a general article on it, with mechanics for various systems.

All this is, of course, merely from a wasted youth of TV, and has no basis in the legal realities of any known state, nation, etc etc.

[Ian Charvill]

John Kim hit it right on the head. If what you have your character say doesn't change my mind and we're still rolling we have a tactical exercise--but the actual content that engages me isn't there yet.

In which case, are you saying the only viable mechanics for such a system are drama mechanics?  That for your character to be perusaded they have to be convinced (whether through author or actor stance) of the merits of the argument?

And by extension, for an npc to be convinced in a debate, the GM needs at some level to be convinced (again author or actor stance)?

That's perfectly fine, and the way these things work historically in large part, especialy w/r/t PCs.  But I don't think there's any reliable way of systematising that, independent of literally creating a legal system with rules of procedure, etc., for use in game.

I'm gonna repeat my point (as someone who studied law for a while at uni) if you create a game system where people have to become experts in a legal system to play experts in a legal system, the take-up rate will be vanishingly small.

It may be possible to establish mechanics which would determine that a PC was 'Persuaded' regarldess of the players thoughts on the matter, i.e. that could be sort of like a loss condition of losing the argument. In fact I can see a lot of use for such a thing, but the idea has foundered by most people legitimate objection to having their character behaviour mechanically controlled.

I'm going to direct you to Robin Law's Dying Earth, which literally does that.  Given that there are a fair number of people who do play and enjoy the game, I'm not sure you can argue that it's foundered particularly, though how mass market it may be...

[pete_darby]

It is *possible* that a PC would bring a suit and then be persuaded against it - but in practical terms, almost nobody makes such a public challenge unless they are thoroughly committed to their position, for whatever reason.

Happened every other week on Ally McBeal, iirc...

...further evidence that the whole series was a surreal, paranoid fantasy, I guess.

[John Kim]

That's perfectly fine, and the way these things work historically in large part, especialy w/r/t PCs.  But I don't think there's any reliable way of systematising that, independent of literally creating a legal system with rules of procedure, etc., for use in game.

I'm gonna repeat my point (as someone who studied law for a while at uni) if you create a game system where people have to become experts in a legal system to play experts in a legal system, the take-up rate will be vanishingly small.  

I don't see why you need a complex legal system.  Legal dramas don't tend to hinge on bits of minutiae -- and in fact some (like Matlock) pretty much toss out even a layman's understanding of legal procedure.  The point is, you don't need a particularly in-depth understanding of law to appreciate the arguments being made.  Thus, I think it should also not be required for a system.  

As for not reliably systematizing, I'm not sure what you mean.  Systems don't always need dice and numbers to resolve them, like Hero Wars does.  For example, Apples to Apples is a card game which relies on subjective judgements.  It is systematic in that it has a clear way of deciding the outcome --  the designated player chooses.  While cards are played, the outcome is entirely a subjective decision.  

The same could easily apply to a legal drama.  i.e. Each player has a lawyer PC or two.  For court cases, two players play the prosecution and the defense.  Another player is the jury.  Other players may play the judge, the defendent, or other characters -- or they might be abstracted out.  The outcome of the case is chosen by the jury player.  

Now, the take-up rate for this might still be vanishingly small, as you say.  However, for this to be relevant you need to show that the take-up rate will be non-vanishingly small for a legal drama game that uses dice and numbers in deciding outcomes.  Offhand, I don't think either of these types are likely to burn up the shelves in their popularity -- though I would be delighted to be proven wrong.