Diplomacy and adjusting an NPC's attitude

I've been pondering the rules for Diplomacy as a skill for quite some time now. Today I realised that we (my group) might be running the game wrong (at least not entirely according to the rules).

Usually we role-play an encounter and then we back that up with a diplomacy check. It can sound something like this: "Yeah, we are but harmless hunters from the north and we would very much like to enter your fair town and trade with your townspeople. - Yay! I rolled 23 on my check." This would mean that the guard most assuredly would let the characters enter the town. Pretty much the same procedure as it would have been if there were no guard but a wall: "Yeah, I try to scale the wall - Yay! I rolled a 23 on my check."

Now the rules for influencing NPCs attitudes doesn't really work that way according to the rules. The rules say that it takes at least one minute to influence an NPC's attitude and that the result is cross-referenced on a table and that gives you the NPC's attitude.

This pretty much means that the example above should work out a little differently:

Player: -Yeah, we are but harmless hunters from the north and we would very much like to enter your fair town and trade with your townspeople.

DM: -We don't trust northerners around here. I advise you to try the next town. - The guard seems unfriendly. Roll a sense motive check.

Player: -16!

DM: You notice that when you mentioned being from the north the guard suddenly became apprehensive towards your party.

Player: Oh. I'll try to influence his attitude towards us... I'll tell him that despite what he might have experienced not all northeners are scum. We are here to do business and this will benefit both the town and our party.

DM: Roll a diplomacy check... Right, he listens to your plea and is now indifferent towards you. He says: Alright, you can enter but I'll be watching you. Stay out of trouble.

What's the difference, you might wonder. The difference is that a successful diplomacy checks just change the attitude of the NPC. You still have to role-play the encounter and provide the arguments. Which means in part that you won't be turning hostile epic characters completely around with a roll of 33.

Or so I thought today. Which way do you do it? Do you use diplomacy as a cold check like climb or jump (success/failure to overcome obstacle) or do you adhere strictly to the guidelines under each attitude on table 5-3?

I assign the NPC a starting attitude and roll a Diplomacy check for the PC doing the bulk of the negotiating. We always roleplay out the interaction, so I'll do this after a couple of sentences have been exchanged, and usually after assigning some positive or negative modifiers depending upon the circumstances and the PC's roleplaying. And then I roleplay out the results of the roll in the person of the NPC.

The above method does let players get some benefit from roleplaying without invalidating the ranks someone invests in the skill. So the cleric with +14 diplomacy will often succeed with some bad roleplaying where the brusque fighter with a +0 won't. Also, I make the roll, not the players.

I think that your method, Shilsen, is what most DMs use (or try to use). However, it's not according to the rules. I hope you agree (otherwise I'm at a loss here).

Has anyone tried playing by the rules? I.e. Giving the game term "attitude" (hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly and helpful) the same level of integrity as AC, Hp and Alignment?

I scanned the rules for Sense Motive and it seems that that skill is not used to know the attitude of an NPC. This pretty much means that any character can at any time ascertain the attitude of an NPC with whom he interacts. So basically when the DM says: "Around the corner you encounter a bunch of street urchins" a player might respond "What's their attitude toward us?" and the answer would (probably) be "Indifferent". Or is it more to it than that?

So what's the difference then? This is how I see it: Using diplomacy the quick and dirty way of rolling dice to back up your words comes natural and gives you an immediate result from which to judge your level of success. However the downside is that sometimes the DM will disregard your roll entirely because he didn't have time to prepare a different way out of the situation. (I.e if you are trying to convince a guard to let you pass, and the DM was planning to tell you something with the encounter, he won't just let you pass until the guard has spoken his piece even if your check result is 98.)

If you use diplomacy the slow way (one minute to check) and then only to shift the attitude up a notch or two the DM will see the swich coming which might give him the time to actually take the check into account.

Sometimes, I've noticed that players with no diplomacy score won't even try to interact because they know they will fail any and all checks -making any interaction futile. (This with the quick and dirty variant described above). On the other hand characters with a high diplomacy score will enter any discussion because they can back up there words with checks in the twenties or thirties. These people frequently become disappointed when their high rolls get disregarded by the DM. Or when good arguments fail because of a die roll.

The good thing about the rules as they are written in the book is that any character regardless of charisma can enter any role-playing encounter because there is no skill for interviewing and interacting with people (that's up to the player). The only limitation being you need to role-play whithin the confines of the NPC's attitude. That is; if the NPC is unfriendly at least you can join in and trade insults without the need for a maxed out diplomacy skill.

Am I making any sense here? I deliberately didn't compare with Shilsen's method as it relies too heavily on the DM (and results may vary).

Frostmarrow,

For the most part, ascertaining the additude of those you interact with is fairly easy. Their facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice give it all away, for the most part. When people are being subversive, hiding their feelings or motives, you get Sense Motive checks. Many GM's have the players roll Sense Motive checks to ascertain an NPC's additude, because IRL, that's basically what you're doing when you pick up on those obvious social clues. The DC is just very low. Requiring a Sense Motive check isn't in the rules, but it makes sense and can add to a game in many ways (about as many as it can detract, hmm).
When the PC's are interacting with that guard, you say, "You notice that when you mentioned being from the north the guard suddenly became apprehensive towards your party." This is a great ruling, because you not only tell the PC that the person he's dealing with has become unfriendly, but more importantly, why! That's what Sense Motive is for, and that's a great use of it. I see the becoming unfriendly part as ancilary to the motive being sensed. If the Guard was hiding his feelings, the DC would be higher, and the PC might not have noticed what riled him. I think what you did there was pretty close to the rules, closer than you might have thought.

- Kemrain the Socially Inept (8 Wis!)

We do it slightly differently again - roll the dice and then roll-play the result

PC rolls 5. "Hey dogbreath, let us in or we'll skewer you!"

PC rolls 21 "Noble guard, we are weary merchants seeking honest lodging in yon town, will we be safe here for the night?"

It isn't ideal, but it prevents great rolls being wasted.

Frostmarrow said:

So what's the difference then? This is how I see it: Using diplomacy the quick and dirty way of rolling dice to back up your words comes natural and gives you an immediate result from which to judge your level of success. However the downside is that sometimes the DM will disregard your roll entirely because he didn't have time to prepare a different way out of the situation. (I.e if you are trying to convince a guard to let you pass, and the DM was planning to tell you something with the encounter, he won't just let you pass until the guard has spoken his piece even if your check result is 98.)

If you use diplomacy the slow way (one minute to check) and then only to shift the attitude up a notch or two the DM will see the swich coming which might give him the time to actually take the check into account.

Sometimes, I've noticed that players with no diplomacy score won't even try to interact because they know they will fail any and all checks -making any interaction futile. (This with the quick and dirty variant described above). On the other hand characters with a high diplomacy score will enter any discussion because they can back up there words with checks in the twenties or thirties. These people frequently become disappointed when their high rolls get disregarded by the DM. Or when good arguments fail because of a die roll.
Many of us, I'm sure, just kind of gauge the DC necessary to successfully win over the negotiating partner without even consulting the NPC attitude table.

The good thing about the rules as they are written in the book is that any character regardless of charisma can enter any role-playing encounter because there is no skill for interviewing and interacting with people (that's up to the player). The only limitation being you need to role-play whithin the confines of the NPC's attitude. That is; if the NPC is unfriendly at least you can join in and trade insults without the need for a maxed out diplomacy skill.

Am I making any sense here? I deliberately didn't compare with Shilsen's method as it relies too heavily on the DM (and results may vary).

Click to expand...

The rules are not a straight-jacket to how you can play. They are there so you have an arbiter of how things can be resolved if you so desire. There's nothing wrong with just doing a quick roll, a bit of RP followed by a roll to determine success, or drawing it out.
You can certainly use the Diplomacy as a cold check and just assume it took the characters a couple of minutes of chatting. And under some circumstances, those minutes might be irrelevant anyway. Feel free to gloss over stuff as you see fit and don't be bogged into details.
I like to have the players role-play out the encounter and then roll for it so that character who have invested (or not invested) in their interpersonal stats and skills get the fruits of their investment. If the role-playing was especially appropriate, I'll give them a suitable bonus so that we can use both aspects of the game: role-playing and roll-playing.
The whole point is to make the game fun and preserve a modicum of credibility. Convincing the guard to let you into town should be much easier and more inconsequential than winning over a hostile Epic NPC. Play out the ones that make the game the most fun and entertaining and provides the best challenge to the playing skills of the people at the table. Resolve quickly, with a cold Diplomacy roll if need be, the interactions that are relatively inconsequential.
And just because the DM wants to interject a little additional information into an encounter doesn't mean you've really failed the Diplomacy roll. There is no save against DM boxed text. If he's got some info to give, let him give it with whatever personality he wants to give it. If the guard has been made friendly with a good Diplomacy roll, it doesn't mean he won't be a gruff and crabby kind of guy who would still warn you he's keeping his eye on you. It just means he'll give you the benefit of the doubt and come to your aid should you be unlawfully attacked within his sight.

The thing is that I have been complaining about the social skills in my group for years. My point has been that since you can't trust your ranks to count those skills are almost redundant. Also I am a firm follower of the role-playing school. You could, I've argued, chuck them out alltogether and the game wouldn't suffer. (Though balance would).

Last session two characters had been jailed by the inquisition in a dungeon, including mine. The other two were staging a rescue attempt. They come in blades flashing very gung-ho and kills guards left and right. They end up at the door to the torture chamber where I and my compatriot are chained to the walls. In front of the door there is a guard who is carrying the key.

One player shouts "Open the door or I'll kill you!" and backs this up with an Intimidate check of 36. Now this is enough to make a hostile epic+6 character friendly for a short spell [by the rules we use]. However the guard (say 5 HD) still opts to lunge out and fight to the death.

The reason for this is that the DM hadn't prepared for this situation and he didn't want the inquisition seem like push overs. The DM had gone to great lengths during our torture to instill fear in us. Also he motivated his decision with the words "the guard is a lot more afraid of his superiors than you can imagine". We did have a pretty good clue though.

All this is fine. But later we concluded (the RL lawyer in fact) that the guard at least according to the rules should have stepped down, scared or not, due to the imminence of the threat.

Still, I thought that the player had practically wasted his many ranks in Intimidate since he couldn't use it in a perfectly valid situation. This prompted me to go back and re-read the rules for social checks. Next time I meet with my fellow gamers I plan to bring the subject up. That is what I've discussed in previous posts in this thread, not the guard of the inquisition example. How should I make my point?

Frostmarrow said:

One player shouts "Open the door or I'll kill you!" and backs this up with an Intimidate check of 36. Now this is enough to make a hostile epic+6 character friendly for a short spell. However the guard (say 5 HD) still opts to lunge out and fight to the death.

The reason for this is that the DM hadn't prepared for this situation and he didn't want the inquisition seem like push overs. The DM had gone to great lengths during our torture to instill fear in us. Also he motivated his decision with the words "the guard is a lot more afraid of his superiors than you can imagine". We did have a pretty good clue though.

Click to expand...

How did he get an intimidate check of 36 while facing a 5th level character? I take it he's pretty high level with quite a few ranks in intimidate and rolled really well?
Next question: Why would the DM think a 5th level guard would make the inquisition feel like less of a push over when facing characters capable of getting a 36 on a skill check?

This is a situation in which the DM overruled the roll (and even role-playing since coming in hacking and threatening is certainly a good way, in character, to improve the situation for getting an intimidate check) for very little good reason. I suspect he was just having a hard time coming to grips with the PCs getting lucky, as happens from time to time. He could have just accepted it or have had the guard try to run for his bloody life, both of which would have been more credible than fighting the incredibily intimidating PC.
This is a case in which, I think, the DM made the wrong choice. Hey, it happens. If it happens a lot, then the DM really should work on getting better at impartially refereeing a game.

billd91 said:

How did he get an intimidate check of 36 while facing a 5th level character? I take it he's pretty high level with quite a few ranks in intimidate and rolled really well?
Next question: Why would the DM think a 5th level guard would make the inquisition feel like less of a push over when facing characters capable of getting a 36 on a skill check?

This is a situation in which the DM overruled the roll (and even role-playing since coming in hacking and threatening is certainly a good way, in character, to improve the situation for getting an intimidate check) for very little good reason. I suspect he was just having a hard time coming to grips with the PCs getting lucky, as happens from time to time. He could have just accepted it or have had the guard try to run for his bloody life, both of which would have been more credible than fighting the incredibily intimidating PC.
This is a case in which, I think, the DM made the wrong choice. Hey, it happens. If it happens a lot, then the DM really should work on getting better at impartially refereeing a game.

Click to expand...

For sure, the DM might have made a mistake (or not). That's not really the point I'm trying to make (since this is the Rules forum). The point is: Is the rules as per the PHB better suited than the "rules" (might be more of guidelines, really) we are currently using.

I am aware that you can disregard the rules for social interaction and just play the game the way feels the most natural. However, since I've been complaining about said rules - and we haven't even been playing the way the rulebook says - I should at least try that before complaining more.

Sometimes in modules it is stated what NPC's initial attitude is so I am wondering if anyone has been playing by the (actual) rules and how that turned out.

But since you were asking we are level 11 Swashbuckling Adventures-characters and I think the character has a +16 bonus to Intimidate so he must've rolled a 20. I used the example to illustrate a DM-overruling that happens quite often. Since the rules we are using is handled in such a step-motherly fashion, perhaps we'd be better off playing by the actual rules? (And also please note that I don't blame the DM for this. If the DM is forced to overrule die rolls there must be something wrong with the system.)