Diplomacy Dispute... Help.

[FendenKrell]

alright so last night we had a game session and two of the players were going to barter with the mayor of a town over a magical mirror of bahamut. the two PCs went off to another room from the NPC. they discussed amongst themselves how the item could be worth at best 650gp but they would start at 550gp and barter it. when they went back into the NPCs room, from their "huddle" if you will, the DM said the NPC mayor was sitting in a chair wearing a bright green vest, smoking a pipe and wearing a shiny ring. they walked in, sat down, the NPC said, "Now lets get down to business..." and then the DM said that the PCs were immediately "mesmerized". you are totally in love with the NPC mayor, you think he's the greatest man youve ever met(a bit of a paraphrase but you get the jist). then he offered 150, 200 was a little high but he can give it to the PCs. one of the PCs said right off that she had a +5 against Charm Effects and the DM said it was not a spell oif any kind. that the NPC was using Diplomacy against the PCs "passive" insight. this ended up with the PCs getting ripped off and not being able to do or say or roll anything in protest. this didnt make sense to me and seemed more like the DM was wanting HIS way and therefore the PCs were not allowed to challenge what was happening to them. any thoughts? and if i am not clear on any points ask and i will respond asap. i will be watching the thread. thank you in advance.

 

[Lurker37]

Well, if Diplomacy is that powerful in that DM's game, make sure you have it maxed out on a PC to have similar impact on other NPCs. If the DM refuses to allow it - THEN you have an argument.

Plus, since the DM is only supposed to let characters sell magic items for 20% of magic item cost (so a 650g item should sell for 130g), you actually got a fair bit more than you should have.

If you don't like getting 20% - that's a separate argument.

 

[FendenKrell]

so diplomacy can be that powerful?!

 

[FireLance]

so diplomacy can be that powerful?!

Certainly, if the DM allows it. However, in my games, it's usually the PCs that use it against the NPCs, and not vice-versa.

That said, I would not have run that scenario as described above. Quite apart from the questionable decision to oppose Diplomacy with passive Insight (normally, Insight opposes Bluff and not Diplomacy), one of my principles of encounter design is to give the players a choice as far as possible. I may limit the number of choices, e.g. the mayor offers the PCs no more than 200 gp, and I may impose consequences for choices, e.g. if the PCs decide not to sell, they are ambushed by thugs sent by the mayor to retrieve the mirror, but allowing the players' choices to affect what happens is one of the key factors that distinguishes a game from a narrative, IMO.

 

[jaelis]

In 3rd edition, PCs were specifically immune to diplomacy, which I think is a good idea in general. PCs should get to run their characters they way they want, that is why they are PCs.

 

[the_redbeard]

That said, I would not have run that scenario as described above. Quite apart from the questionable decision to oppose Diplomacy with passive Insight (normally, Insight opposes Bluff and not Diplomacy), one of my principles of encounter design is to give the players a choice as far as possible. I may limit the number of choices, e.g. the mayor offers the PCs no more than 200 gp, and I may impose consequences for choices, e.g. if the PCs decide not to sell, they are ambushed by thugs sent by the mayor to retrieve the mirror, but allowing the players' choices to affect what happens is one of the key factors that distinguishes a game from a narrative, IMO.

Bingo.

Nothing upsets players more than taking away their choice. I know that as a DM. As a player, choice is why I play the game - I get to choose what I do.

So philosophically, I disagree with your DM.

Is Diplomacy vs passive insight a good rule for haggling? That's more of a judgment call.
But it is another area I disagree with the DM. Not as strongly as his little power trip with the mayor, but I still disagree.
For one thing, you should be able to haggle as well. Diplomacy vs diplomacy maybe? Perhaps Knowledge Arcana check of a suitable DC (dependent upon item) for being able to explain the value of the item magically.

If the mayor was using diplomacy to ingratiate himself to you, that might be a different check that would have to be defended against. I don't know that passive insight is the way to go. Maybe even Will defense? If he succeeded, that might give you a minus on your haggle roll - you wouldn't be too greedy with someone you like.

Nevertheless, baring a charm effect I wouldn't force the player to accept the results of a haggle roll. It is still the player's choice to sell or not - but the NPC won't budge any farther.

Lastly, as pointed out - 20% is the common rate for re-selling magic items. While I really disagree with how your DM reached the price, in the end the way result was more in line with the book value.

I'm sure the DM has his/her side of the story, but they seem to be a jerk from how the story was presented.

 

[Hedgemage]

If your DM likes railroading so much, he should work for Southern Pacific.

Forcing the PCs into behaving like he did is just terrible. This is a perfect example of a scenario that could have been done with skill challenges. He could make the DC's difficult, let you get bonuses/penalties for roleplaying, and everyone would have been happy. In fact, if the PCs did manage to squeeze out a few more pennies from the miser, then give them some XP too, and make the extra gold part of the treasure for that level.

There is no excuse for what he did besides lazy/bad DMing.

 

[Greja]

Wow... Just wow...

Never:
Tell the players how to feel
Tell the players how they act
Let skills overcome roleplaying

I'd consider telling your DM that his choice of actions has annoyed you. He deserves to know the thoughts of his players. Possibly direct your DM to this thread, and we can have a conversation on how this situation would be better handled that may result in the same plot direction (if it were ment to be one).

 

[clearstream]

In 3rd edition, PCs were specifically immune to diplomacy, which I think is a good idea in general. PCs should get to run their characters they way they want, that is why they are PCs.

That's true... sometimes. I've a long running campaign in which the key villain is a Diplomancer. Usually she uses her diplomancy on NPCs to get them to do things favourable for her and unfavourable for the players. My players hate that in a good way.

Occasionally she or a direct minion has used a charm or diplomantic effect on a player, and each time that player has endeavoured to roleplay their character appropriately.

So my experience is that you can, sometimes, mind control player-characters and that isn't an issue. It can be fun and it makes a player loathe your villain in a way that just doing damage never will.

You as DM shouldn't fear to charm or mind control or diplomance your PCs. If I have a criticsm of the OPs DM, it's for being a clumsy. The mayor should have had the town pre-diplomanced so that no one would consider offering more than his price, but never say that in so many words 'Sorry Sirs, we haven't that sort of money', and the DM should have used descriptions such as 'You can see that the mayor is offering you more than he can really afford, just to help you out' if the mayor beat the players' passive Insights. (Yes, passive Insight is the ideal value to use to resist active diplomancy.)

Clumsy DM is clumsy. Don't fear mind control.

-vk