Diplomacy: A game-wrecker?

[amerigoV]

Most importantly - changing an NPCs attitude does not change an NPCs goals/responsibilities. A guard will not just let someone walk in because they are now "helpful" in attitude. They will be very pleasant, but still shoo the PCs away from whatever he is guarding (say instead of waving a sword at them). A villian may not act bloodthirsty to the group, but that does not mean he will not kill them at the approriate time (he might just monologue a bit).

Diplomacy <> charm spell

I generally tell players this - just talk, and a higher diplomacy score means it will be taken in the right way.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Some of this sounds like this penaltizes player for putting skill points in diplomacy (he should have just worked on his speaking skills in real life). Since some people in real life have bad cha, but their characters don't.

So really I think it should be the intent that matters not how they say it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So really I think it should be the intent that matters not how they say it.

Agreed. But the intent requires telling the DM what that intent is, above and beyond rolling for Diplomacy.

The way I worked it in 1e with Charisma was that, if you had a high Charisma, people tended to give you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of what you said, they tended to see it in the best possible light. If you had a low Charisma, people thought you were a schmuck even if you said all the right things.

Now, saying all the right things helped, either way. When the high-Charisma guy said the right things, he was rewarded on top of his reward for high Charisma. When the low-Charisma guy said all the right things, they still thought he was a schmuck, but they weren't ready to just put him on Ignore. When the low-Charisma guy said all the wrong things, though.....

I kind of view social skills in 3.x (etc.) in a similar light. They tell you how people take what you're saying, but what you're saying is also important.

Of course, I believe that challenging the player is as important - or more - as challenging the character, so that colours my viewpoint!


RC

 

[pawsplay]

1. Diplomacy is not charm. As noted above, just because Emperor Palpatine is Friendly to Lord Vader does not mean he won't feed him to Luke Skywalker in order to further his Neutral Evil ambitions.

2. Diplomacy requires conversation. It will fail at any time if an NPC attacks or simply refuses to listen. Coaxing someone into a conversation when they have refused to talk is a Bluff check.

3. Circumstance modifiers.

4. Attitudes can still shift. "I use Diplomacy." "The guard is now Friendly." "I ask him if I can see inside the vault." "The guard is now Unfriendly."

NPCs have just as much free will, according to the GM's preference, as any PC. Simply shifting someone's attitude does not force them to do anything they would consider stupid. All you might get from a Friendly red dragon is the opportunity to surrender your gold peacefully and leave. He doesn't owe you anything, and he's evil.

 

[frankthedm]

And while I despise diplomacy the most, it isn't limited to that single skill. More and more, when they come back to town with loot, I hear the words "I buy a (insert magic item here)." No interaction. Nothing.

I feel like my effort is being wasted.

My big question is: does anyone know a way to get them away from this (particularly diplomacy) and condition them to actually role-play?

Are you sure they want to role play? Just killing things down in the dungeon and looting is plenty fun for some folks. To some people, in town dealings are just what just slows the game down between combats.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Grue]

IIRC I think it takes 10 rounds (1 minute) for Diplomacy to shift attitudes. I may be mixing editions here but in any case I think it's a realistic rule of thumb.

Now if a player forgoes attacking once combat has begun to keep talking, or somehow convinces the enemy to pause a moment to hear the pc out, I suppose it could be useful after swords have crossed, but generally a 'Diplomancer' build shouldn't be too much of an annoyance or a gamebreaker.

On the city interaction thing...on every fricking npc they meet... that can be annoying. My suggestion would be allow the roll but roleplay the npc interaction out and apply situational modifiers based on the pc interaction. It may temporarily slow the game down, but making a roll for every mundane npc they meet is a time waster. Unless they really like that sort of thing, they'll get the point and only bother 'improving mood' with key npcs.

Another thing to note...a pc cultivating a lot of 'friendly npcs' in town to reap benefits is also accumulating responsibilities. Maintaining a sizable social network can be a full time job in itself. Friends expect things of friends. Someone to talk to about problems, borrow money (after all an adventurer typically is a homeless psycho with bags of gold...no household or family to support he can surely spot a pal 5 gold for a week), hang out with (and have a beer). Plus they'll also stand a good chance of being recognized about town as one of the local noteworthies.

 

[Trihelios]

I would recommend talking to your players.

 

[Jhaelen]

I would recommend talking to your players.

Nah, just roll a diplomacy check

 

[Doc Eldritch]

You could also customize an NPC's diplomacy modifier. Add the NPC's will save mod to the Diplomacy DC. Some NPCs are not so difficult to influence, more important ones can be quite strong willed and not willing to be easily influenced.

This makes bonuses from roleplaying even MORE important, to me. And gives a bit of "social combat" without getting into too much detail for such a system.