Let's face it – we use it everyday,
for little things, for big things, at home, at work while playing,
while not playing – negotiation is a foundation of the human
experience. Whether it's in a game, or in a business transaction, it
is undoubtedly one of those skills that's fundamental to how we
approach interactions. Ironically, while we're playing our favorite
RTS, or taking a run through a shooter, or even saving the planet in RPGs, negotiation is one of those elements that presents itself
constantly, even if it's unintentional, and becomes apart of our
experience. Some of the more common that we see, three specifically,
are positional bargaining, separating the people from the problem, and best alternatives to a negotiated problem – or
BATNA. In order to learn more, let's go over three videos that
fundamentally peruse these techniques.
The video from Emory School of Law on
Advanced Negotiation (which can be found HERE), is an amazing – and
beware, long – introspective on effective means of negotiation,
particularly as it pertains to elements of positional bargaining. In
the realm of video games, maybe we'll instantly think of that brutish
shop keep, or those moments where we had issues with convincing an NPC
to join the cause. Often these kinds of choice mechanisms fall under
the purview of "Game Theory", something brought up
throughout the Emory presentation. When we think of the
aforementioned game scenarios mentioned, adversarial bargaining
or positional bargaining, as it were, are a core mechanism for
these experiences, which Emory's Paul Zwier explains as a kind of
Zero-Sum element, where it becomes pertinent to determine "settlement
points" – or overlaps between each sides' area of commitment in
the negotiation – leading bottom lines of each person, and defining needs. Otherwise, you might end up like this cartoon from Stu's Views:
Much like the Emory video, these needs
and their associated settlement points, are major factors also in
determining how to separate people from the problem. As
William Ury likes to call it , "The Third Side" –
something he notes in his video at TED. In his video, The Walk from
"No" to "Yes," we go over the mantra of the Third
Side – a representation of the central argument of any negotiation.
With Ury's "third side", the video encapsulates the
correlation of the positions in a negotiation with the desired needs
of the people involved. Ury goes on to anecdotal stories and
revelations concerning the nature of people, particularly in relation
to their social mores and how that context can equate to a personable
third side to a conflict or negotiation.
While it may not be intentional, this
kind of element comes up in games, quite often, especially in recent
years. Conversation with NPCs in games like Skyrim, or Mass Effect,
can determine how people respond to you – sometimes you begin to
recognize their needs, wants, as well as things they'll settle for, as a
determining factor in how you win them over. The foundation is
similar to Ury's presentation, and it's becoming more common in
playing, as people desire more choices.
Sometimes, choices lead us to avenues
we simply have to settle with as an alternative. Like BATNA
(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), determining your
alternative settling point is as important in gaming theory, for
choice patterns and the play experience in events, as the rest of
everyday life and work. Negotiation for Entrepreneurs gives a great
speech on negotiation, particularly revolving around the
aforementioned BATNA, in which getting to know your alternative
requires forethought and preparation in its own right. Focusing on
how to provide a foundation for that and the contingency of your
alternative, the podcast goes over how this determines the "dynamic
of the negotiation," starting with writing everything down, and
taking notes – being your own secretary, as it were – in order to
ensure elements of your negotiation are on track.
There is, of course, knowing how to swing a
negotiation so that, should things not work out, the value of your
alternative is improved, rather than diminished. This gets you
avoiding contest of wills - one of the topics covered – while
also going over how "win-win negotiations" are the only
methods to maintain an outcome. How does all this translate to
relevance? The answer is simple – by concentrating these
elements around your alternative, you set up a method of negotiation
that helps to avoid the need to go there, with a contingency that
makes your particular alternative look just as good, if not better. From a
gaming standpoint, rather than the narrowly focused outcomes of many
negotiation-based conflicts, a game could instead improve the
efficacy of how a player can deliver specific outcomes in these
moments. In other words, methods to externally produce better results
(or worsen them), as well as methods to fall back to, in order to
hopefully still obtain the initial outcome associated with the
negotiation in the first place – an example might be trying to win
over an NPC to join your party.
So, ultimately we've taken a brief
review of three powerful videos that give us a solid sense of the
three techniques mentioned earlier. What we can take away from this,
is that knowing them in a brighter light allows us to better
understand the correlation between game interaction and negotiation –
and how this form of conflict creation/resolution is a beneficial
and useable aspect in game theory, improving the living
narrative a player develops in games they play.
