An ability check with THREE outcomes?!

        Imagine a D&D session where, instead of a traditional Difficulty Check (DC), where a roll either passes or fails, the dungeonmaster set-up a skill check with three possible outcomes. Many dungeonmasters probably already have such a tiered system for some rolls or situations. I, myself, have responded to player rolls with various shades of success. We might call the three options an underwhelm range, a whelm range, and an overwhelm range. Perhaps on a Survival Check an 11 or fewer represents losing the trail, a 12-18 represents following it slowly, and a 19 and above, a shortcut is found. 

Think about this as a metaphor (and fun game mechanic) to persuasive communication. According to Social Judgment Theory (SJT) each time we encounter a message, we judge it in comparison to all the relevant messages we’ve received before. It’s a compelling idea to think that each time I offer a mission to my players, they each compare that offer to all previous offers they (and their characters) have ever had. Some messages seem unreasonable and fall in what Muzafer Sherif calls the latitude of rejection. Other offers are worthy of consideration and fall in what SJT calls the latitude of noncommitment. A Natural 20 offer exceeds expectations and is accepted gladly. 

With those three zones (rejection, noncommitment, and acceptance), SJT tries to understand what makes a message persuasive. Ego-involvement (how much one cares about something) plays a role with what topics are most important to us. And, for those people who hold extreme viewpoints, they typically care very deeply about those viewpoints. Curious evaluations occur when we judge messages. Our beliefs anchor our expectations and form the platform from which we judge whatever comes at us. 

Imagine a D&D session where, instead of a traditional Difficulty Check (DC), where a roll either passes or fails, the dungeonmaster set-up a skill check with three possible outcomes. Many dungeonmasters probably already have such a tiered system for some rolls or situations. I, myself, have responded to player rolls with various shades of success. We might call the three options an underwhelm range, a whelm range, and an overwhelm range. Perhaps on a Survival Check an 11 or fewer represents losing the trail, a 12-18 represents following it slowly, and a 19 and above, a shortcut is found. 

Think about this as a metaphor (and fun game mechanic) to persuasive communication. According to Social Judgment Theory (SJT) each time we encounter a message, we judge it in comparison to all the relevant messages we’ve received before. It’s a compelling idea to think that each time I offer a mission to my players, they each compare that offer to all previous offers they (and their characters) have ever had. Some messages seem unreasonable and fall in what Muzafer Sherif calls the latitude of rejection. Other offers are worthy of consideration and fall in what SJT calls the latitude of noncommitment. A Natural 20 offer exceeds expectations and is accepted gladly. 

With those three zones (rejection, noncommitment, and acceptance), SJT tries to understand what makes a message persuasive. Ego-involvement (how much one cares about something) plays a role with what topics are most important to us. And, for those people who hold extreme viewpoints, they typically care very deeply about those viewpoints. Curious evaluations occur when we judge messages. Our beliefs anchor our expectations and form the platform from which we judge whatever comes at us. 

Two ways that we make errors (especially around the beliefs we hold strongly) is to judge rejected messages as more different from our belief (the anchor point), than they actually are. You can imagine an NPC cultist (or acolyte) who is fanatically devoted, rejecting even the existence of other deities’ powers. Errors in judgement also occur to messages that fall within our latitude of acceptance. We judge those as more similar to our own position than they may actually be. These are contrast and assimilation errors, respectively.

For maximum effect: Craft your persuasive messages (haggling, negotiating, diplomacy, and deception) to fall as far away as possible from your listener's position, yet still within their latitude of acceptance (or at least noncommitment). Push too hard, and your listener may reject you outright. When ego is involved and the NPC (or PC) seems to have a wide latitude of rejection, most persuasive messages will fall on deaf ears. It may even result in a boomerang effect, which drives the listener further from where we want them to be. 

In practice, persuasion is gradual, step-wise, and slow.  To enhance your chances at real-life and tabletop persuasion, don’t forget to articulate your own credibility. Highly credible speakers have the ability to reduce a listener’s field of rejection by chipping away at the edges. For dungeonmasters, consider making your diplomacy and bartering interactions reflect this slow, gradual process of persuasion. You may even lean on SJT’s three latitudes to provide your players with a more nuanced system for experiencing levels of accomplishment, not just failure or success.