Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fanaelialae]

IMO. The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk. They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything. That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine. This is unlike every other pillar of the game.

Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
Exploration there are moments all characters can contribute.
Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.

So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural. I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.

You can get around that pretty easily though. At my table, if multiple characters are talking to an NPC then at the time the check is called the DM will ask, "so who wants to lead the check?", but everyone's contributions affect the DC (which in some cases might admittedly be to the group's detriment, but that's simply because that character said something that hindered the effort).

 

[prabe]

IMO. The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk. They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything. That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine. This is unlike every other pillar of the game.

Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
Exploration, typically every character can find a way to help. Lookout for danger, navigate, scout ahead, look for food, watch for traps, etc.
Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.

So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural. I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.

My approach is twofold. If the entire party is at the negotiation, I let all the players contribute to the conversation and ask the face-type to make the appropriate check. If there are party members who want to do something else, I let the party split, and I jump back and forth between the threads. I think it's easier to remain engaged at the table when you know you'll be doing what you want to be doing, soon (as opposed to trusting that there'll be an encounter or something later on that plays more to your style).

 

[Scott Christian]

IMO. The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk. They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything. That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine. This is unlike every other pillar of the game.

That is a great point. You are definitely correct. In the OP's case though, or cases where diplomacy is a pivotal point in the adventure, then it seems reasonable to have the non-diplomacy person take a back seat. They don't need to be out, but they take a back seat. Much like some classes do during combat. They participate, but they are not "shining."

But I don't want that to sound counter to your point. I think you are spot on, and it was a perspective I haven't fully appreciated. Thanks for that.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can get around that pretty easily though. At my table, if multiple characters are talking to an NPC then at the time the check is called the DM will ask, "so who wants to lead the check?", but everyone's contributions affect the DC (which in some cases might admittedly be to the group's detriment, but that's simply because that character said something that hindered the effort).

Right. I'm not saying there aren't solutions, just that they don't normally arise on their own.

I think your "solution" helps but doesn't completely solve the problem. I mean you are still having a PC's actions be detrimental to the team and you still have the whole social encounters are puzzle mini-games where you must guess the right response to not hurt the team. It's just no longer save or die which is an improvement. In other words, the party would still have been better off if that PC had done nothing which tends to lead toward resentment, accusations of disruption and bad faith play.

 

[Lanefan]

Quite the opposite here. The memorable moments I have come from PC vs PC situations (when I did not GM).

Ditto here, both as DM and as player; and as player this includes some occasions when I was very much on the losing end.

Sometimes a single pivotal confrontation that changed the course of events, some others an ongoing attrition of unconciliable attitudes with the occasional clash, or cross revenge.

Ongoing rivalries can be fun too.

 

[Lanefan]

I've had great moments of character conflict. But the ones I remember fondly were the ones where both players were on board with it. It didn't descend into player conflict. Anytime it resulted in player conflict, it is something I recall as being entirely negative.

Yes. It has to stay in character.

One of the best was a situation early in my current campaign where the party had decided to sell some captured prisoners into slavery (one PC had 'slaver' as her past profession, so there was a certain line of logic there) except two PCs plotted to turn the rest in to the authorities as slavers (slavery is technically illegal where they were).

The local guards are quite open to bribery, so it ended up as a quiet bidding war between the snitch PCs (to arrest the slaver PCs) and the slaver PCs (to get the cops to turn a blind eye); and a lot of town guards got wealthy that night.

It finally ended when the slaver PCs tracked down the snitches, neutralized them, tied them up, and left a quiet note with their slaver contacts about a little gift they could find in location X - the two snitch PCs ended up as slaves.

Best part: this all took twice as long to play through as it probably should have because everyone at the table kept breaking out in gales of laughter! And this was all entirely player-driven - all I had to do was referee, and play the role of a bunch of increasingly-happy town guards.

(in case anyone's wondering, the party then went on to bust up the whole slaving operation [this was a variant of 1e's A-series modules] and in fact much later ended up rescuing one of the two 'snitch' PCs; the other was already known to have lucked into a pretty cushy slave gig as tutor to some rich guy's kids)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Right. I'm not saying there aren't solutions, just that they don't normally arise on their own.

I think your "solution" helps but doesn't completely solve the problem. I mean you are still having a PC's actions be detrimental to the team and you still have the whole social encounters are puzzle mini-games where you must guess the right response to not hurt the team. It's just no longer save or die which is an improvement. In other words, the party would still have been better off if that PC had done nothing which tends to lead toward resentment, accusations of disruption and bad faith play.

I'm not saying it solves the problem completely. If you have a hack and slash player and a diplomancer, it certainly won't help.

However, I'd say it's less about guessing the right response and more intuiting it. If the DM is forcing the players to guess without any hints to the NPCs personality, they're (IMO) doing it wrong. There should be explicit or implicit information as to what the NPC wants to hear.

The player can most certainly help as well as hinder. If you stroke the ego of the egomaniacal overlord, you're probably helping. If you insult him, you're probably hindering the effort. IME, it's typically a matter of using common sense basic social skills to avoid hindering the effort.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is a great point. You are definitely correct. In the OP's case though, or cases where diplomacy is a pivotal point in the adventure, then it seems reasonable to have the non-diplomacy person take a back seat. They don't need to be out, but they take a back seat. Much like some classes do during combat. They participate, but they are not "shining."

But I don't want that to sound counter to your point. I think you are spot on, and it was a perspective I haven't fully appreciated. Thanks for that.

Thanks,

I think the combat analog would be the enemy captain challenges your strongest to a 1v1 duel to settle the differences. Now the rest of the players are sitting back watching and any meaningful action on their part could quickly undermine all the efforts of the PC engaged in the duel. I think such a situation has a place, but it should be exceedingly rare. I'm willing to say the same about analogous social encounters.

IMO there's a difference between simply shining and being the only one meaningfully participating.

 

[Lanefan]

In the end, I think we can all agree it is about being respectful to other players. Players should allow other players to shine. That is how the entire infrastructure of character building. This guy is good at traps. This guy can take a lot of damage. This gal can deal massive damage. This gal can convince anyone of anything.

This assumes each player wants to play one of those different types of character; which is by no means always the case.

Far more often two players want a Fighter and the other two want an arcane caster; and they end up recruiting NPCs to fill the lineup gaps.

I mean, how many of you here have built a character specifically for a skill set? I have a drow arcane trickster/rogue now, who is almost 100% diplomat. All his skills. All his spells. And all his backstory revolve around that.

Even a character that finely specialized (which in general is something I'd steer away from on the meta-level) can still find ways to be involved the rest of the time; just as can others find ways to be involved in Face-y stuff.

And what if another player also wants to play a Face-type? Is that to be denied just because you got there first? (I sure hope not!)

If there was someone constantly ruining my diplomatic moments I would wonder why? It would be the same as if in every fight I tried to get the creature to run away or tried to convince the group not to fight. I am pretty sure the group would wonder why.

Or they'd just say "Ah, ignore him - it's just that silly diplomat again trying to be Picard when we'd rather be Kirk." "No, wait, let him talk - he'll be a great distraction while we move in for the kill!"

 

[Lanefan]

I think your "solution" helps but doesn't completely solve the problem. I mean you are still having a PC's actions be detrimental to the team

Sure you are.

Same as having a Fighter in clanky plate mail trying to sneak into the cave with an otherwise-stealthy party; or the Illusionist or Diplomancer faced with a bunch of mindless skeletons in a dungeon: anything that character does is probably going to be at best marginally helpful. Doesn't mean that character should do nothing.

Sometimes a particular character just doesn't suit the here-and-now situation. So what? Have it do what it would do anyway, and see what happens.