The Wizard, The Archer, and Routes of Persuasion

 When it comes to your turn in the initiative order, how much time have you spent thinking about and planning what you’re going to do?  (For the sake of your DM, I hope the answer is more than “none”.)  For our friendly neighborhood archer, maybe not much: shoot my bow.  For the wizard up next with 20+ spells prepared, perhaps there’s been quite a lot of thought that’s gone into what to do next. Let’s think of the archer and the wizard as opposite ends of a preparation continuum. The poles of these extremes are representative of what this theory of persuasion considers minimal and maximal mental effort. If using mental effort to consider what to do next is elaborating your options, just how likely are you to do that when your turn comes up?

Richard Petty (not the NASCAR driver) and John Cacioppo developed their model of attitude change (The Elaboration Likelihood Model) in an effort to understand what makes it more or less likely that we’re actually going to think hard about the decisions we make. They posit that we have two different routes available to us when we’re faced with a decision: the peripheral route (archer) and the central route (wizard).  When we carefully weigh our options, consider relevant arguments and counter-arguments, we elaborate and engage our central processing route.  When we act out of habit, react mindlessly, or are triggered by cues, our peripheral route engages. These triggering cues can be factors like:

1. authority (the guards said to) 

2. consistency (Do I always act this way?)

3. liking (I love this bard’s songs)

4. reciprocity (I owe you one)

5. scarcity (We have to act now!). The ELM originally presented the archer and wizard as separate routes; more likely, though, they are points on a our imaginary continuum

6. social proof (Everyone else in the party has already attacked the NPC, I’d better attack too)

If thinking more centrally (and elaborating more) costs mental effort, we might ask if it’s even worth it. Dungeonmasters can manipulate their players into making quick, peripheral-route decisions by manipulating one or more of the six triggering cues above. Time pressure is an effective way to enhance the likelihood of peripheral (and potentially poor) player decisions. Players generally want to act well, hold valid beliefs about the game world, and make party-enhancing decisions. This is even more important for issues where there is a personal stake. DMs may also find that different players at the table have a high need to establish clarity with their decisions. Others don’t seem to care at all. Some seemingly want to work out every option, every angle, consider every spell, test arguments and ideas. Others will fire their bow at a shiny coin. Frustrating for some DMs (and for the rest of us in real life), elaboration may not even be possible for some. 

Being the classic wizard takes some desire to at least want to play “the brains” and show a desire and motivation to use them when making decisions. Distracting situations, constantly updating social media feeds, snacks, and taking too much damage can each interrupt concentration (and therefore elaboration). Repeating a persuasive message might help, or they might tire people out and therefore lead them to resort to the more peripheral/archer route. 

Not all elaboration (e.g., carefully chosen actions and spells) is guaranteed to be effective or helpful. Some elaboration is biased and occurs when a set of predetermined conclusions color the base data. In contrast, bottom-up thinking strives to consider the facts on their own. For example, I might think a lot about which damage-dealing spells are at my disposal, but that thorough elaboration is only helpful if I need to deal some damage.  If the situation calls for a negotiation, it was all for naught. My presumption that the mysterious NPC in the alley needed to be Fireballed, all my central route travels were useless.

Dungeonmasters can also employ the ELM by encouraging peripheral processing in their players in a few mischievous ways. The most obvious cues come in the form of tangible rewards (gold, jewels, treasure, rescued towns, beast trophies) and the persuasive power of credible NPCs. Sometimes players seem unmotivated or unable to elaborate (understand what choice they should make). Additionally, DMs can motivate players to not think through options thoroughly, with time pressure.  Be warned though: hastily-made player decisions may be fickle, temporary, and brief. Research has found powerful peripheral cues tend to be short-lived ones. 

Players wishing to use the tenets of ELM in their gameplay, I see it’s connection most clearly with your diplomacy, and Charisma Checks. Your gameplay can benefit from:

1. In cases where the DM seems likely to listen and consider your points (likely to elaborate), use facts.

2. In the cases where the DM is working from their peripheral-route, weak arguments will probably backfire. 

3. Sometimes (especially when elaboration is unlikely) show is better than substance. Many-a-player has benefited greatly from a sparring and well-timed use of Thaumaturgy. 

4. Peripheral processing, and persuasion based on it (just like Charm Person) only lasts so long. [Pat yourself on the back if you knew it was 1 hour.]

ELM is a really interesting theory that gets us to think more deeply about the different ways we think about our conflicts and both strategies and responses to persuasion.  It’s a theory no thoughtful gamer should be without.