Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 4329355" data-attributes="member: 50987">This is sort of what I'm working on.I create a special house rule, and give it a snappy name like &quot;arbitration.&quot;&nbsp; Any time that a situation would require a Diplomacy check (or Bluff, or Intimidate), the player or the DM may decide to use Arbitration rules instead.&nbsp; So if a major story element hinges on the outcome, or if a character stands to gain or lose a great deal from the result of the check, the DM/player doesn't have to rely on the luck of one single dice throw.Arbitration would work sort of like combat.&nbsp; A character's Diplomacy (or Bluff, or Intimidate) bonus is treated like an &quot;attack roll,&quot;&nbsp; and his Resolve (&quot;armor class&quot;) would be equal to his/her chances to avoid a bluff.&nbsp; A person's Composure (&quot;hit points&quot;) would be equal to 10 + 1/2 character level + Cha modifier, or something along those lines.To begin, each side writes out the purpose of the Arbitration...what exactly he/she hopes to accomplish, to some degree of detail.&nbsp; Then, initiative is rolled.&nbsp; Each &quot;round&quot; of Arbitration takes 1 hour.The &quot;attacker&quot; chooses a tactic from a list, similar to the way a fighter would choose a weapon.&nbsp; Offering gold, for example, might grant a +2 to Diplomacy, but only deal 1d4 damage to a person's Composure.&nbsp; Threatening a member of his family might strike at -4, but would deal 1d12 damage if successful.&nbsp; That sort of thing.&nbsp; (I won't go overboard here; I would create about a half-dozen things to use as benchmarks, and leave it up to the DM and players to create more based on the situation.)A Diplomacy (or Intimidate, or Bluff) check is made against the target's Resolve.&nbsp; If it &quot;hits,&quot; the opponent loses Composure.&nbsp; Other tactics would help &quot;heal&quot; lost Composure...consulting with a comittee, or making a public statement to regain lost favor, making a particular skill check, etc.&nbsp; (Again, I wouldn't go overboard here...just a few examples and guidelines, and then leave it up to the DM and players.)Ultimately, one side of the discussion will wear down the other's Composure to zero or less.&nbsp; This means that one side has won the debate, and accomplishes the stated purpose.A system like this would quickly get dull if it is used for every Diplomacy check.&nbsp; But when used in moderation, I think it would be a great enhancement to my games.Thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 4329355, member: 50987"] This is sort of what I'm working on. I create a special house rule, and give it a snappy name like "arbitration." Any time that a situation would require a Diplomacy check (or Bluff, or Intimidate), the player or the DM may decide to use Arbitration rules instead. So if a major story element hinges on the outcome, or if a character stands to gain or lose a great deal from the result of the check, the DM/player doesn't have to rely on the luck of one single dice throw. Arbitration would work sort of like combat. A character's Diplomacy (or Bluff, or Intimidate) bonus is treated like an "attack roll," and his Resolve ("armor class") would be equal to his/her chances to avoid a bluff. A person's Composure ("hit points") would be equal to 10 + 1/2 character level + Cha modifier, or something along those lines. To begin, each side writes out the purpose of the Arbitration...what exactly he/she hopes to accomplish, to some degree of detail. Then, initiative is rolled. Each "round" of Arbitration takes 1 hour. The "attacker" chooses a tactic from a list, similar to the way a fighter would choose a weapon. Offering gold, for example, might grant a +2 to Diplomacy, but only deal 1d4 damage to a person's Composure. Threatening a member of his family might strike at -4, but would deal 1d12 damage if successful. That sort of thing. (I won't go overboard here; I would create about a half-dozen things to use as benchmarks, and leave it up to the DM and players to create more based on the situation.) A Diplomacy (or Intimidate, or Bluff) check is made against the target's Resolve. If it "hits," the opponent loses Composure. Other tactics would help "heal" lost Composure...consulting with a comittee, or making a public statement to regain lost favor, making a particular skill check, etc. (Again, I wouldn't go overboard here...just a few examples and guidelines, and then leave it up to the DM and players.) Ultimately, one side of the discussion will wear down the other's Composure to zero or less. This means that one side has won the debate, and accomplishes the stated purpose. A system like this would quickly get dull if it is used for every Diplomacy check. But when used in moderation, I think it would be a great enhancement to my games. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification