How to mediate in a dispute?

[Arthadan]

I'm writing an adventure and I've came up with a situation I'm not sure how to handle rule-wise.

There are two opposing sides, one with many warriors and the other one with many children and elders and they are pretty mad at each other. If a fight erupts it will be a massacre, so the heroes should mediate between them, namely calm them down, learn the facts and propose a solution.

How would you handle that?

So far I'm thinking about two parallel encounters, that is each roll would be compared with two different TN as they are adresing at the same time to two different groups. The possible outcome would be one of the groups will listen to them but not the other.

[Glorelendil]

Well, first of all, I'd avoid a situation where failure by the PCs means binary disaster. Sounds like they either defuse the situation, or civilians die. I'd mitigate that somehow.

Then, yeah, two separate Encounters seem like a good idea. Maybe even structure it in some way that you go back and forth between the parties, and you can spend successes from one side ("concessions") on rolls with the other.

[Arthadan]

Well, first of all, I'd avoid a situation where failure by the PCs means binary disaster. Sounds like they either defuse the situation, or civilians die. I'd mitigate that somehow.

Then, yeah, two separate Encounters seem like a good idea. Maybe even structure it in some way that you go back and forth between the parties, and you can spend successes from one side ("concessions") on rolls with the other.

The concessions idea sounds great, thanks!

Both groups are quite small in number, so should things get offhand, the characters can protect the civilians.

[Stormcrow]

Is this mediation happening in front of both groups simultaneously? Don't use two encounters, use one. All the normal rules apply. Players can address one side or the other when proposing compromises. If they can get both sides to end up agreeing to compromises that resolve the dispute, then the deal is done, the encounter is over, and you can count up your successes (which may determine how well the brokered peace proceeds from that point). If you exceed Tolerance (due to failures dealing with either side), the sides give up mediation and become hostile.

If the characters are running back and forth between the two sides, then I suppose two parallel and interspersed encounters work. Such negotiation is by nature limited due to the slowness of passing messages back and forth.

[Falenthal]

I think Stormcrow's option is what ressembles more to the RAW.

But maybe you'd like to do things a bit different this time, as this is a special situation.
I can't come up with a nice mechanic on how to deal with the situation, althoug I also like a lot the "concessions" idea by Glorelendil (gaining succes die in one Encounter, to be used in the other one).

Maybe you could take a look at this mini-game, created for the "discussion" in the Folk-moot at Rhosgobel.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3272&hilit=folk+moot+mini+game

I used it and it went really well. I'd advise also not to envision only two outcomes (fight or peace), but to assign different ranges depending on the success of the heroes (as in the outcomes of the Encounters).

[Rich H]

Simlar to Falenthal, I used that folk moot thread to create one of my own:



Just reading this thread, I knocked up the following to fit the general theme of the OP:



It may seem a little gimmicky to some but my players love these kind of sub-games and visuals but it also makes things easier to track and I don't mind my players having access to information that wouldn't necessarily be available to their characters; they use it to enhance the game not detriment it. And the tracker numbers/scale and information can be edited to fit specific encounters - providing bespoke options as per what's needed in the encounter.

As a side note, I also did something similar for the chase referred to in 'A Darkness in the Marshes' (from TfW):



... Have yet to use it though.

[Arthadan]

So many good ideas to choose from! Thanks everybody!

I was reluctantto reveal much of the adventure to prevent spoilers, but since this happens at the start let m show you what I have:

Starting situation

They (Mountainmen) decided to stay in the Vales a bit more, as they still had some goods to trade. They went to visit Nerthach’s clan (Hill-men)and the next day Brondulfr (leader of the Mountainmen) disappeared and so did Angharat, the witch of the Hill-men clan. Now both factions blame the opposite, the traders think Brondulfr has been taken because the gold trinkets he was wearing and the sword and the Hill-men believe Angharat has been kidnapped by Brondulfr to torture her as she knows much about ancient ruins and the trader showed much interest about that but Angharat refused to speak.

The traders are strong men, armed, while the Hillmen count with one fighter and two wolfdogs (it's the smallest clan, just a family and the rest are civilians). So, the Mountainmen have the upper hand.

Now the test, so far is a parallel encounter but maybe it's too complicated.

Mediating in the dispute
This encounter will be run slightly different, as there are two parties involved, it will be resolved as two parallel encounters. That is, each roll will be compared with two different Tolerance scores, one for the traders and one for the Hill-men. Write down the number of successes and failures for each one separately.

Set Tolerance
Both, Nerthach and Brynjar, respect strength so initial Tolerance is equal to the highest Valour in the company.
Nerthach: Increase the Tolerance by 1 if the heroes are in good terms with another Hill-men clan (Cynbal’s for example), the Black Hills is a small area and they will be recognized. Reduce the Tolerance by 1 if there are any Elves, Dwarves or Beornings present (they will take them for the same folk as the traders). Right now he is pretty distrusting with outsiders.
Brynjar: Increase the Tolerance by 1 if the heroes are in good terms with Black Tom, and Beornings can use half his standing (rounded down). Reduce the Tolerance by 1 if there are any Elves or Dwarves in the group.

Introduction
They are both too angered to be cowed, so all attempts to impress them with Awe will fail automatically. However presentations given using humble Courtesy may work. Their patience is running thin, should the companions opt for individual presentations difficulty will be hard (TN 16), while if they chose a spokesman difficulty will be standard (TN 14).

Interaction
Brynjar is concerned about his father and he is determined to force Nerthach to tell him the truth (or what he believes it is the truth). He wants the group to either support him or not interfere in his business.
As soon as Nerthach realizes they are not with Brynjar, he will ask them for help against “these treacherous liars”. He is well aware his bodyguard and two wolfdogs will be no match for the mountainmen.
Persuade, Courtesy or even Song may calm them now enough to tell their own version of the facts and let the other speak. For each successful roll they may choose who they are asking to and the Loremaster will reveal a piece of information:

Any of them
- The group of five traders arrived yesterday.
- The Hill-men had heard about the traders from other clans, so they welcomed them.

Nerthach
- Their leader, Brondulfr, was covered in gold trinkets (an use of Insight will reveal he is exaggerating).
- They interrogated Angharat, the clan witch, about where to find old barrows, she refused to answer and next morning she was vanished.
- It is clear Brondulfr is a grave robber and has taken her by force to compel her to reveal the location of more barrows to plunder (Buddug will say that, even if she is not supposed to take part in the conversation)

Brynjar
- Nerthach showed great interest in his father’s gold and sword (they offered animals and even a woman in exchange).
- They are no grave robbers, but claiming their rightful inheritance (an use of Insight will reveal he is not sure at all of this claim).
- He believes the Hill-men have taken his father to take his gold and his sword and they are now playing him for a fool. Probably the witch cast a spell on him.

• Insight: a successful roll will reveal:
- Normal success: Which arguments are false, as noted earlier.
- Great success: Buddug seems happy about Angharat’s disappearance (true but not useful).
- Great success: Brynjar has black circles under his eyes, he has not slept well for days and he seems very worried about his father (the sword is already affecting his father and he feels something is amiss but he cannot point out what it is).

• Riddle: a successful roll will reveal:
- Normal success: Despite both parties blaming each other, they have no proof.
- Great success: Both truly think the others are to blame, because they cannot conceive any other reason for the disappearances.
- Extraordinary success: It is possible that one disappearance will explain the other. Quite likely, there is a relation everybody is missing.

Finding a solution
At the end of the encounter, it is time to know what kind of impression has caused the company to each group. Find out the result for Nerthach and Brynjar and add both “day modifiers”. A high modifier may improve a poor one reflecting the fact a leader persuaded by heroes may be willing to make some concessions in order to reach a solution.

After the encounter has ended, it is clear that the solution is to find the missing people and since each group mistrust the other, it should be the characters (it is best if they can reach this conclusion by themselves, if not you may want to help them if they pass a successful Riddle roll and if everything fails, they will be asked to by a desperate Nerthach). The “day modifier” resulting of adding both is the number of days both groups are willing to wait for the characters to find the missing people (if the total is inferior to 1, it will be 1 day). After that period traders will find answer their way.

1: The company is perceived as a group of meddlers.
- Nerthach: needs the company, so he will try to use them.
- Brynjar. Will ask the company to mind their own business and leave.
- - 1 day.

2-4: The companions have managed to make the leader rethink his position. Maybe there is other explanation after all.
- No day modifier.

5-6: The companions have won the trust of the leader, they seem fair and willing to help.
- + 1 day.

7+: The group has made quite an impression, they are deemed trust-worthy, level-headed and reasonable.
- +2 days.


I think is a bit messy as it is. I will re-read your kind suggestions tomorrow and decide how to simplify it.