Debate already isn't nearly as luck-based as some people think; it's a bit more than just rock-paper-scissors. Even so, there's an awful lot of luck there. I just IDEAd something that would add a tiny bit to the tactics, and thought I'd post it and invite more ideas.

My idea: two new Dramatics skills, Grandstand and Stall. You know how debate automatically raises the stakes as the debate progresses, so each volley does more damage than the previous one? FASTTALK GRANDSTAND would take about half as much eq as a debate attack, and would raise the stakes as much as a whole volley, therefore making the debate riskier for both parties. You might use this if you think you've got the other guy on the ropes and want to deliver the final argument... or if you're on the ropes yourself but feel pretty sure you know what mindset they have, so you can turn things around. FASTTALK STALL would take as much eq as a debate attack, but would do the reverse, lowering the stakes. You might use that if you're in dire straits and just want a chance to catch up on healing, or if you think your foe heals ego better than you but you predict mindsets better than he does, to avoid him getting the lucky blow. Since the code must already exist to crank up the stakes of a debate, these would have to be very easy to code, just turn that knob up or down an extra notch or two.

Thoughts on these ideas? And, any other ideas for similar small improvements to make debate more tactical?

I guess it would depend on how high up in Dramatics these new skills were? Long ago, it felt like debates were more "fair", in the sense that chance was a bigger factor than it was now. Nowadays, you have various dramatic skills flying around, and in the hands of a demigod with high charisma who knows what he's doing, the chances seem much more in his favor...

I think if anything, debates should be changed to level out the playing field a bit more again. I'm not saying a demigod should have a realistic probability of losing to a newbie, but something less extreme than what we have now. With this current system, I can see why some low-level players would get discouraged in village influences, which is where debates seem most used...

It is pretty much the same in PvP though, Zalandrus. Unless you are Demigod with the the abilities and with the skill, you're dead... well, you might stand a chance if you're a monk who knows how to abuse your abilities. I'd rather we not apply some monk tactics to debating.

The problem I see with GRANDSTAND and STALL is that it wouldn't change things much, if only in the highest tier. Against a weaker target one could spam GRANDSTAND few times, hoping for a one hit shatter. The target has two options here, they either attack and risk to shatter themselves, or deal damage which still will only phase the other debater. Should they decide to counter with STALL, the longer eq will still mean that the other person will outpace them with GRANDSTANDing.
Let's take this further. A Demi Faeling or Demi Wild Elfen with 20+ Cha would most likely be able to stack at least 3 GRANDSTANDs in the timespan it takes an average 15 Cha person to attack once, or STALL once. If we reverse it, the big guy will be able to STALL and recover about as fast as the small guy recovers from GRANDSTAND.

Now, I'd love to see some changes to debating and the ideas are pretty nice in theory. However, I'd make them the other way around. Stall on half eq and Grandstand on full eq of a normal attack and limit it to maximum of three, or maybe even two level increase/decrease.

Another thing I just though of is making changing mindset take 1sec eq since currenlty you can simply alias to change mindset/attack this way sometimes you'd think about changing or attacking. You could even make it a dramatics aff. FASTTALK CONFUSION, confuses to target and makes them reconsider which mindset to use, causing the switch to take away eq for 1 second.

EDIT:
If you see typos, you're seeing things

Pretty sure that higher charisma doesn't effect debate speed, only how hard you hit. I was an Illithoid debating a faeling once and we went blow for blow, he just was able to hit much harder.

Right, I confused with influence attacks... gah, my head is all wrong today. In more than one way actually
Ignore the post above then.

I always viewed debating as NOT the same as PvP, in the sense that debating is a (slightly) more even playing field. Of course demigods should be better at debating...but smaller people should stand at least a slightly better chance in debates against them. My view of the system, at least.

Swapping the eq cost of grandstand and stalling like Enero suggested might be a good idea.

Why would you ever grandstand if it took as long as an attack? Just attack. You get the advance (as it's part of the natural progress of a debate) and an attack. That's why grandstand has to be half eq.

I imagined these as very low skills, maybe in the Adept to Gifted range.

You can grandstand instead of actually debate so you don't run the risk of losing ego, while still progressing the debate.

I'm not adverse to these ideas. Any other input?

Sounds interesting to me.

I hope this doesn't count as a necro.

Well, since puns are popular, why not implement puns, too?

FASTTALK FUNPUNS

This will both require and take equilibrium and its own 'funpun' balance. Its eq. time should be half of the usual debating skills and should cause the target's mindset to switch into its counterpart (Because the pun got the better of their attention, perhaps?). This would be useful(I guess) for more surprise attacks. The purpose of having its own 'funpun' balance is to make sure that people won't keep using it before every debate attack, and I think it'd be good if it causes a considerable increase in the debate 'tempo'(sorry, not sure how one exactly calls it) so there'd be a greater ego loss after every use, so technically, a wrong attack after it can cause its use to backfire on the user (prolly the user was overwhelmed by their own pun and got carried away instead of debating properly? I dunno heh)

Well, that's just my idea, though..heee

Please be nice

I dislike these ideas.

I would prefer if debating was more like rock, paper scissors, and less like combat.
The more afflictions, abilities, etc, you add to make debating more tactical, the more inaccessible you make debating to the average player. I was drawn to influence and debate because it looked like it would be something I could do without a million aliases and cures. But it isn't, and the more things you add, the farther it gets from my grasp.

debates are supposed to be tactical, imho...but that's just me