Problems with the Diplomacy skill (plus a total halt to a campaign)

[D'karr]

I see the problem as one of improper dependency.

You have tied the entirety of the campaign on the players following this very "scripted" methodology to find this particular entrance. You say that you are trying to avoid railroading, and somehow you want to preserve verisimilitude, but the entirety of this seems heavily on rails. Either the PCs find the entrance, or they don't. But if they don't then the campaign should continue in another direction, else it's a railroad

Reaching that entrance from another point apparently impacts the sense of verisimilitude, but then you rely (depend) on a gather information roll, a diplomacy roll, and a search check to even find this entrance.

Which one is more important the continuation of the campaign, or the sense of verisimilitude?

Sounds like one of those motivational posters:

VERISIMILITUDE
Wrecking D&D campaigns since 1974​

 

[D'karr]

After that the group went back to the tavern and will not investigate the case any further.

Have you considered the possibility that the players are not interested in whatever hook is out there for this adventure, and would rather do something else? I would check with the players to see if they are simply not interested in this particular adventure.

 

[N'raac]

On topic:

I let anyone of my players play out any part of any social encounter they get with roleplay addition whenever they want to which can add about a +2 to a +4 (depending on creative awesomeness) modifier to their social skill roll for that encounter. But as DM I always describe the results in character. Those two things together usually tends to make them want to do it too. And if they don't sometimes, no biggy, we roll and move on. Not everyone wants to achieve shakespear greatness every 10 mins.

My questions are simply:

(a) Do you treat other skills, combat rolls, etc. similarly - that is, roleplay additions (depending on creative awesomeness) can add a +2 to +4 bonus?

(b) If not, why is player skill considered to appropriately influence the results of social interaction, but not similarly influence success or failure in other endeavours of the characters?

 

[Greenfield]

I've been thinking about that same thing, and by chance I've come up with the answer: Yes, I do. We all do.

If a player demonstrates good tactical knowledge we do give them bonuses, all the time. We give them +1 to Hit when they know to take high ground. We give them +2 to hit when they know enough to double team and set up flank attacks. We give them extra attacks when they corner some enemies, such as spell casters, forcing said enemy to either risk Attack of Opportunity to cast a spell or extract themselves, or else risk spell failure while trying to cast defensively

We give players bonuses to Climb when they remember that that the DC to climb a rope is 10, but the DC to climb a knotted rope is only 5 (I've always played that this shortens a 50 foot rope by 10 feet to put knots large enough and close enough together to make a difference).

We give players bonuses on Heal checks if they remember to write down that their character carries clean bandages, ungents etc. in a "Healer's kit".

We give these bonuses because the rules spell them out, clearly.

But social skills, like Bluff, Diplomacy and the like don't have those clearly defined ways to get an edge. The authors trusted us, as DMs, to figure those out on the fly. And that's pretty much what we're talking about here: How much edge to give, and when.

 

[N'raac]

I disagree. The nature of the interaction bonuses are for player skill being demonstrated, not for using the environment or providing appropriate equipment.

A bonus to hit for high ground or flanking is analogous to a bonus to Diplomacy for knowing the target's likes or dislikes, and incorporating them into the diplomacy check, or discovering that a threat to expose the Duke's affair with the chambermaid is more likely to scare him than any threat of physical violence.

A bonus to Climb for rope, or Healing for a healing kit, analogizes to a bonus to Diplomacy for giving a gift of flowers, liquor, magic or jewels.

None of these bonuses are based on the ability of the player to give an emotive speech, or to describe a dramatic combat maneuver, but on their character's use of in-game environment and equipment to seek out an advantage. The fact that the player speaks in a flat monotone does not mean his character, with a 20 CHA and 12 ranks in Diplomacy, or Perform(Oratory), does. Nor does an impassioned and emotive speech by the player in any way enhance the abilities of his 6 CHA dump stat no social skill ranks character.

 

[Greenfield]

We routinely reward good play. In combat situations the reward is often simple survival, but however it happens, there's more to it than stats and dice rolls. The player's tactical skill and spell choices are what makes the difference.

In what way is it fair to reward good play in one aspect of play and disregard it everyplace else? Remember the simple rule: Any behavior you reward, you get more of.

So what do want more of, role playing, or roll playing?

Make your own choice and live with the results.

 

[N'raac]

We routinely reward good play. In combat situations the reward is often simple survival, but however it happens, there's more to it than stats and dice rolls. The player's tactical skill and spell choices are what makes the difference.

In what way is it fair to reward good play in one aspect of play and disregard it everyplace else? Remember the simple rule: Any behavior you reward, you get more of.

So what do want more of, role playing, or roll playing?

Make your own choice and live with the results.

But is this always good role playing? An impassioned, emotive speech by the Cleric filled with the spirit of his deity and trained in oratory to deliver sermons, or by a Bard whose raison d'etre is manipulation of others by emotional appeal seems like good role playing.

A similar speech by the Introverted Peasant Fighter with an 8 CHA and no social skills seems like very poor role playing to me. The character is being played out of character in the interests of achieving a bonus to his chances of success - the very epitome of "roll playing", no different than the Paladin using a torch to the groin because "that's the best interrogation modifier".

 

[Sunseeker]

But is this always good role playing? An impassioned, emotive speech by the Cleric filled with the spirit of his deity and trained in oratory to deliver sermons, or by a Bard whose raison d'etre is manipulation of others by emotional appeal seems like good role playing.

A similar speech by the Introverted Peasant Fighter with an 8 CHA and no social skills seems like very poor role playing to me. The character is being played out of character in the interests of achieving a bonus to his chances of success - the very epitome of "roll playing", no different than the Paladin using a torch to the groin because "that's the best interrogation modifier".

Sure, it's the issue of Player/PC dichotomy. Lets say Bill plays your "face", your bard or your sorcerer with high cha. Bill plays that class because he enjoys the class, not because he's particularly good at talking, heck, PC Bill might only have a high cha because he's got a pretty face and likes to sleep with all the barmaids. Randy on the other hand plays the fighter. Randy is a smart guy, but enjoys playing simpler classes.

Should Bill be the only player allowed to participate in important dialog? Even if Bill is utterly horrid at it simply because PC Bill is "good" at it?

 

[Blammoh]

My questions are simply:

(a) Do you treat other skills, combat rolls, etc. similarly - that is, roleplay additions (depending on creative awesomeness) can add a +2 to +4 bonus?

(b) If not, why is player skill considered to appropriately influence the results of social interaction, but not similarly influence success or failure in other endeavours of the characters?

Actually I do! (In answer to A.)

But mind you, I don't give out extra bonuses to a player's success, but to the party's success. And thusly, I look at the group's collaborative inventiveness rather than one player's glib tongue, so to speak.

Example: Group got arrested a few sessions back for breaking and entering a basement. Upon the arrest. the bard (and guildleader to be of his own guild) was debating legal city boundaries with the inspector on whether he was excempt from certain persecution. The arresting officer was actually a fan of the Party of PC's which the bard knew and was also working that angle. Then the cleric steps in too and states that she will put her reputation as a decent citizen and follower of Thor on the line to show we had no criminal intent. That act got the bard an extra 4 points for his diplo roll to have the officer look the other way in this.

 

[Blammoh]

Sure, it's the issue of Player/PC dichotomy.

<snip>

Should Bill be the only player allowed to participate in important dialog? Even if Bill is utterly horrid at it simply because PC Bill is "good" at it?

A dichotomy which is easily remedied by not an ingame solution, but an on-table solution. You know your players and their intent and if someone described his actions in a manner that is not as shiny as his character would, you help him out by filling in the gaps. Player enjoys it much more, and the end resulting is the same.

I firmly believe in not Roll playing or Roleplaying, but an almost indivisible hybrid of the two.

I call it RollePlaying. And I am going to trademark it!