Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Diplomacy and adjusting an NPC's attitude
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Frostmarrow" data-source="post: 1315688" data-attributes="member: 1122"><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>This pretty much means that the example above should work out a little differently:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Player: -16!</p><p></p><p>DM: You notice that when you mentioned being from the north the guard suddenly became apprehensive towards your party.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Frostmarrow, post: 1315688, member: 1122"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Diplomacy and adjusting an NPC's attitude
Top