Frostmarrow
First Post
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?
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?
Last edited: