Jesse Coombs well that’s an interesting question. Hm. If I was starting from first principles I think I’d come up with something that isn’t actually compatible with the game’s underlying “one system to rule them all” approach.

That said, here is an example where I found the current system unsatisfying:

Last night I had a player trying to convince everyone to pack up and leave rather than set about slaughtering the zone ghouls who are running a large, valuable water treatment plant. In the course of making his plea, another player decided to make the case that actually, yeah, they should absolutely slaughter the zone ghouls — the plant’s too valuable to walk away from! 

So who rolls? The RAW has two thoughts on this:

1. The player who made the initial pitch (i.e. “the attacker,” loosely defined in the rules but at least identified).

or 

2. Roll for initiative. The character with the best Agility + d6 would be making the roll.

Those are both 100% legal and legit. Do either of those make sense? There are two sides to this argument. Who’s the actual “attacker” here? The “let’s take this place!” initially started as an NPC’s idea. Hell, do we back it up that far after the fact? 

That said, here’s how I handled it: the guy asking to leave is murderously good at Manipulate (Empathy 5, Manipulate 3 or 4 at this point), but he actually had the slave make the roll. The slave is terrible: Empathy 2, Manipulate 1. I’m not sure how we landed there but we went with a “loudest and slowest” type resolution. And the slave got it! With a compromise, which the “let’s leave” guy declined to take.

And then the big bad Enforcer, whose dream is “I want to build the world, not destroy it,” said he was walking away from any slaughter they might try. Here, take my gun, I’m out. Powerful! He made no roll. But the player so effectively framed his position that the “let’s take this place!” slave player was moved, and conceded that they should just go home.

It was an amazing interplay. And what scares me to death about resorting to it is:

1. I have no idea if that outcome could be replicated. 

and

2. It does not model that the smoothest talker in the room should succeed most at talking. Just like the fiercest fighter in the room should win more fights.

The back of my brain feels like the “loudest and slowest” solution has merit but I don’t know why it should. The guy with the smallest pool makes the roll when there are two sides arguing. It means that character has the harder job and is least likely to drive the other side to Broken. It also means the best talker doesn’t get a shot at Breaking the weaker side. It has all kinds of logical problems, but it had a kind of elegance to it.