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

[Greenfield]

If I was Bill and had tailored a character to be good at talking, I know I'd be annoyed if Randy was consistently able to achieve as good or better results simply because he was better at phrasing his dialogue in ways the DM found impressive.

If a player isn't willing to participate at all in social scenes that's one thing, but if someone who's trying to play a social character is getting shot down simply because they're not personally as persuasive a talker, then they're basically having an aspect of the game closed off from them on the grounds of real-world ability.

That's not something that's done with any other aspect of the game - you don't need to be smart to play a wizard, or strong to play a fighter, or devout to play a cleric. So why do you need to be charismatic to play a diplomat?

Fair point.

As I said, I'd hand out a circumstance modifier of no more than +2 for a good pitch, based no so much on the player's eloquence as on the verbal tactics they employ.

If +2 is all the difference there is between Bill's PC who's "good at talking" and Randy's who isn't, then Bill needs to learn better character design.

I picked +2 as the top bonus because it's what a character can achieve at combat situations with good tactics, it's the circumstance bonus someone might get to Climb skill if they planned the right gear. It's the typical bonus you'd give for Craft if they had the right tools or a trained assistant.

In short, it's appropriate. More would bring about exactly the problem you describe. None at all would make that the only skill in the game where the result can't be modified by player tactics or planning.

Think about that: Need to feed the party in the wilderness? That's Survival. Roll your dice, and I don't care if you have fishing gear or not, you can fish equally well.

Need to treat an injured friend? That's Healing. Go ahead and roll your dice, and we won't care if you have a Healer's kit or not, the dice and the dice alone will decide if your friend lives or dies.

Need to start a signal fire to get rescued? That's Survival again. Roll your dice and I won't ask if you actually bothered to keep your firewood dry, or if you have flint and steel (tinderbox in the equipment list). There are no circumstance modifiers for good planning and no penalties for being dumb as a sack of hammers.

Is that how you think we should play?

 

[N'raac]

As I said, I'd hand out a circumstance modifier of no more than +2 for a good pitch, based no so much on the player's eloquence as on the verbal tactics they employ.

If +2 is all the difference there is between Bill's PC who's "good at talking" and Randy's who isn't, then Bill needs to learn better character design.

It means Bill's 14 CHA is the same as Randy's 10 CHA. I think that's a significant difference.

I picked +2 as the top bonus because it's what a character can achieve at combat situations with good tactics, it's the circumstance bonus someone might get to Climb skill if they planned the right gear. It's the typical bonus you'd give for Craft if they had the right tools or a trained assistant.

In short, it's appropriate. More would bring about exactly the problem you describe. None at all would make that the only skill in the game where the result can't be modified by player tactics or planning.

Think about that: Need to feed the party in the wilderness? That's Survival. Roll your dice, and I don't care if you have fishing gear or not, you can fish equally well.

Need to treat an injured friend? That's Healing. Go ahead and roll your dice, and we won't care if you have a Healer's kit or not, the dice and the dice alone will decide if your friend lives or dies.

Need to start a signal fire to get rescued? That's Survival again. Roll your dice and I won't ask if you actually bothered to keep your firewood dry, or if you have flint and steel (tinderbox in the equipment list). There are no circumstance modifiers for good planning and no penalties for being dumb as a sack of hammers.

Is that how you think we should play?

Let's look at each of those in turn:

Think about that: Need to feed the party in the wilderness? That's Survival. Roll your dice, and I don't care if you have fishing gear or not, you can fish equally well.

I think a bonus because the character has purchased and brought along fishing gear is appropriate. I don't believe the fact that the player can tie a fishing lure or has a fishing rod in his basement where we happen to be playing mandates any bonus to the character's survival check.

Need to treat an injured friend? That's Healing. Go ahead and roll your dice, and we won't care if you have a Healer's kit or not, the dice and the dice alone will decide if your friend lives or dies.

Again, a bonus because the player has purchased and uses a healer's kit is perfectly reasonable. A bonus because the player is a paramedic or because he can grab a first aid kit off the wall in the house you're playing in, however, does not assist with the Healing check.

Need to start a signal fire to get rescued? That's Survival again. Roll your dice and I won't ask if you actually bothered to keep your firewood dry, or if you have flint and steel (tinderbox in the equipment list).

All valid questions directed at the player's character. The player responding "well, no, but here's a lighter I'm carrying in my pocket - that's at least as good as flint and steel" should not net any in-game bonuses.

There are no circumstance modifiers for good planning and no penalties for being dumb as a sack of hammers.

Should the player be required to described precisely what is carried in the healer's kit, and how his character will use these implements to address the current injuries? The player may very well think a torniquet around the neck is a good way to treat a head wound. His character with a +15 heal check presumably knows better (and the guy with a -2 WIS modifier and no healing ranks may not).

To turn to diplomacy, I again don't think the fact that the player is a good talker should have any impact on his character's interaction skills (be they bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, whatever). That does not preclude bonuses for in-game activity. A character claiming that "we are but peaceful traders" may find that's a harder bluff to pull off when he also has a crossbow leveled at the target. The absence of a weapon might make Intimidating a heavily armed warrior tougher. A bonus on Diplomacy to get the aid of the local Sheriff could certainly be enhanced by knowing he likes Elven Firewine and sharing a glass, or gifting a bottle. But it's the character's Firewine and knowledge (or lucky guess) that the Sheriff has a weakness for same, not the player's bringing beer for the group, that grants this bonus.

Or should the cute chick who flirts with the GM, or his army buddy, or the guy who brought snacks, get in-game bonuses that other characters lack?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because you can't actually beat up an imaginary kobold...but I'd certainly reward creativity in imagining how you'd do so. But not being very smart IRL may make you unable to solve the puzzle, even if your character as an 18 int. The reverse is also true, you can still solve an imaginary puzzle with real smarts, you can't beat up an imaginary kobold with real fists.

i thini this is a part of the game where, for many people, what your character actualy says is an important part of the experience and interaction with the setting. For some, rolling a die is just as good at determining the way the in game event plays out, but for others the way the in game even plays out is the end itself (and the die navigates around that). It is also tricky because both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. For me, it is just too important to speak in character and using rolls either in place or to determine what really happens (which kind of undermines in character role play) is less fun.

there are some fairness issues of course, just likke there are fairness issues around any part of the game where players can use their smarts to overcome challenges. I think it is important to remember though that skills like diplomacy, bluff and intimidate, at least in D&D are somewhat new. Before third edition, charisma was used for the reaction roll for situations where the GM was unsure of how monsters or npcs might react, and it was usually applied at the beginning of a situation (then you would rp to change or improve the reaction). Skills like ettitquette were really knowledges. The player would use them to see if he knew the most appropriate way to behave but would still have to role play it out himself.

Ultimately this boils down to what you are at the table for and what you enjoy. I love interacting with npcs, and I love investigations. I dont like reducing my interroations of interviews with suspects in an investigation to a die roll. I want a real one to one relationship to what I say and what the NPC says. And I dont want to use social skills as a character simulator (i.e. i got an 18 so now i play my guy suave, but When I get a 3 I bumble). To me I want to feel the direct connection to my character and dont want it mediated by dice.

This approach does benefit people with better social skills no doubt (just like the grid benefits people with better tactical skills). I think to a degree there is a element of challenge and competition in the game that is okay to preserve. And natural talent can be rewarded. At the same time, I think you give people an A for effort as a GM (i dnt care if Jimmy can give a stellar speech, just that he try to give one....if he has a high chr, I can cut him a bit of slack and weigh that into the npcs reaction). Also, over time, when you play this, people do get better (just like people learn better tactics over time with minies).

 

[N'raac]

i thini this is a part of the game where, for many people, what your character actualy says is an important part of the experience and interaction with the setting. For some, rolling a die is just as good at determining the way the in game event plays out, but for others the way the in game even plays out is the end itself (and the die navigates around that). It is also tricky because both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. For me, it is just too important to speak in character and using rolls either in place or to determine what really happens (which kind of undermines in character role play) is less fun.

The preferences of the group should dictate. However, if success or failure in social interaction will be determined primarily or exclusively by player, rather than character, ability, I believe players should be told so at the outset, and not left to invest (waste) investment in CHA, skill ranks, feats, etc. that would by RAW be used to determine success or failure in social interaction, only to discover that the GM pays little attention to these, instead resolving such challenges according to player ability.

there are some fairness issues of course, just likke there are fairness issues around any part of the game where players can use their smarts to overcome challenges. I think it is important to remember though that skills like diplomacy, bluff and intimidate, at least in D&D are somewhat new. Before third edition, charisma was used for the reaction roll for situations where the GM was unsure of how monsters or npcs might react, and it was usually applied at the beginning of a situation (then you would rp to change or improve the reaction). Skills like ettitquette were really knowledges. The player would use them to see if he knew the most appropriate way to behave but would still have to role play it out himself.

Very true. Even those CHA rolls were typically ignored in prior editions, when it was not just interaction skills that had little or no rules structure. The result was that the primary (often only) use of CHA was to determine whether the character qualified to be a Druid or Paladin. Result - it was consistently dumped, with no real detriment to the character.

If we rely on player skill in 3e, CHA becomes a dump stat for all characters whose mechanics do not place any reliance on it. Why should my fighter put anything into CHA or Intimidate if you're going to assess success or failure based on my ability to deliver a threatening speech?

Ultimately this boils down to what you are at the table for and what you enjoy. I love interacting with npcs, and I love investigations. I dont like reducing my interroations of interviews with suspects in an investigation to a die roll. I want a real one to one relationship to what I say and what the NPC says. And I dont want to use social skills as a character simulator (i.e. i got an 18 so now i play my guy suave, but When I get a 3 I bumble). To me I want to feel the direct connection to my character and dont want it mediated by dice.

This approach does benefit people with better social skills no doubt (just like the grid benefits people with better tactical skills).

That's not really a fair comparison. No matter how strong your tactical skills, a 1 still misses, and the guy who took the worst possible tactical approach can still roll a 20 and/or be missed on all those attacks of opportunity. To me, it is far better role playing when I hear "My character stands up - it's not in my character's personality to crawl to safety" then "I only have 7 hp left, and I'll have to suffer 3 attacks of opportunity to stand up - 5 foot crawl". The first statement is made, at least at our table, with a full understanding of the tactical consequences.

Similarly, I have no problem with someone else at the table (including the GM) pointing out that, if the character stands up, he will be exposed to three AoO's. Just because the new (or less rules savvy) player does not know this, that is no reason that his character would not be aware of the risk posed if he chooses to stand up. Here again, it is the character's knowledge and skill, not the player's, that will rule the day.

But keep in mind that this comes from a gamer who, when asked about my character's approach to attacking an Umber Hulk, stated (in character accent) "I charge looking the beast straight in the eye - as any TRUE warrior would." To this day, I am amazed he still let me roll a saving throw (and not at all unhappy it came up '1').

There was no reason my character would know the abilities of an Umber Hulk, and every reason he would think as a warrior first.

 

[D'karr]

But keep in mind that this comes from a gamer who, when asked about my character's approach to attacking an Umber Hulk, stated (in character accent) "I charge looking the beast straight in the eye - as any TRUE warrior would." To this day, I am amazed he still let me roll a saving throw (and not at all unhappy it came up '1').

This made me smile.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The preferences of the group should dictate. However, if success or failure in social interaction will be determined primarily or exclusively by player, rather than character, ability, I believe players should be told so at the outset, and not left to invest (waste) investment in CHA, skill ranks, feats, etc. that would by RAW be used to determine success or failure in social interaction, only to discover that the GM pays little attention to these, instead resolving such challenges according to player ability.

certainly. You should always cover these kinds of things before play. If diplomacy was watered own or not used, i would tell the players so they dont waste points. I actually switched back to 2E mostly over this issue (and fr my group it made a huge improvement on play). If I were to run 3E again, all I would do is take out diplomacy, bluff and intimidate, put in the Ettiquette NWP as a skill and go back to the old reaction adjustment rules (which diplomacy is built on anyways). For me the key is to have IC social interactions and have those matter.

Very true. Even those CHA rolls were typically ignored in prior editions, when it was not just interaction skills that had little or no rules structure. The result was that the primary (often only) use of CHA was to determine whether the character qualified to be a Druid or Paladin. Result - it was consistently dumped, with no real detriment to the character.

If we rely on player skill in 3e, CHA becomes a dump stat for all characters whose mechanics do not place any reliance on it. Why should my fighter put anything into CHA or Intimidate if you're going to assess success or failure based on my ability to deliver a threatening speech?

If I dont use intimidate, then it wont be available as a skill. So there is no danger in spending points on something that wont come up. I would still use chr as a modifier for for the reacion table on occassion and for followers. But yes it does lose some value. Personallym i am okay with that in my own game.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Let's break this down. First, Diplomacy is broken. The concept of permanently re-pegging attitudes is so broken that the badly balanced DCs only serve to exacerbate the underlying problem. The RAW turns every character specializing in Diplomacy into the Mule from Asimov's Foundation Trilogy (and the Mule broke an entire galaxy-worth of game balance).

I see a few glaring problems with the diplomacy skill:
1. It requires at least a one minute of conversation. Sometimes a player briefly explains the situation (maybe a 2-3 fullround actions) and then easily gives up with the conversation. The minimum timeframe is not reached.

Note that RAW provides for this: A Diplomacy check can be attempted as a full action (6 seconds), but you take a -10 penalty on the roll. If your players aren't willing to actually engage the problem long enough to talk through even its most basic parameters, hit them with the penalty and they'll mend their ways.

2. Sometimes it's hard to know if they are trying to bluff, negotiate or intimidate. We can't roll all this at once.

This is a problem you'll face with a lot of skills. For example, if the DM says, "You see a wall." And the player says, "I go to the other side of it." Well... what skill are they using, exactly? Are they climbing the wall? Jumping over it? Busting through it? Is it a Climb check, Jump check, or Strength check vs. Break DC?

When I pose the question like this, of course, the solution is probably self-evident: You need to ask the player to be more specific. Exactly how are they going to get to the other side of the wall?

Same thing applies in social situations. If you're uncertain which skill they're using, ask for more details about what they're actually attempting.

If they're actually using an approach which combines several skills (like climbing halfway up a wall to a ledge and then jumping over the rest of it), either let the secondary skills offer them synergy bonuses or have them actually make a skill check to aid themselves (as per the aid another action). For example, if they decide the best way to talk their way through the door is to lie to the occupants and tell them that a local swamp gas pocket has exploded and they need to evacuate the area before they get poisoned then you could ask them to make a Bluff vs. Sense Motive check and on a success grant them a +2 bonus to their Diplomacy check.

I have made an effort to minimize railroading. You can negotiate with the husband or the wife or with both (or intimidate them or bluff them), or you can sneak into the house or you can use magic or you come with a ruse in order to have the house cleared. Also an NPC offers the players a chance to use forged documents to pose as members of the city guard and investigate the house.

Good use of the Three Clue Rule, but you've run into one of two problems. Either:

(1) You need to back up and provide two other ways to hook into this scenario.

(2) Or your players are quite consciously rejecting the scenario and you need to decide just how much you want to avoid railroading. If entirely rejecting a scenario is OK with you, then let them do it. If not, your best bet is to say: "Look, guys, the scenario hook requires you to investigate the house."

(3) Let the chosen action have consequences which escalate the scenario. The goal here is basically to go back to #1 and find a way to proactively provide two new hooks into the scenario. I don't know what's contained in the secret passages inside the house, so I don't know what form this might take. But, for example, if secret cultists are using those tunnels to sacrifice innocent victims then maybe a friend/comrade of the PCs can be kidnapped. Or maybe someone approaches them because their daughter has been kidnapped. Or maybe the ritual of the cultists succeeds and releases a horrific monster onto the streets of the city. Subsequent investigations can then lead them back to the house and re-engage them in the scenario.