Diplomacy and Issuing Commands

[mwnrnc]

I've been using Alexandrian's modification (here) of Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules in my campaign and, so far, I've been satisfied with them. However, there is one area where I feel like they fall a bit short - issuing commands to subordinates.

My campaign has a lot of servants and serfs, squires, and men-at-arms who are all bound by law or honor to their lieges. Often, the leaders must issue orders to their subordinates (one PC is even a knight) that involve lots of potential danger and very little "exchange." Really, the only reward the servant can expect is their wages or a small share of the spoils. Often, they receive no reward other than not being punished or slain for cowardice or insubordination. In the Alexandrian's rules, issuing a command would be too much like a negotiation. When the king issues an order to a commoner, how the commoner feels about the king and the relative quality of the order don't really matter. Of course, exceptions to this may apply (for duplicitous knights, traitors, and the like).

Further, I think having issuing orders as a subset of Diplomacy or Intimidate does both a bit of disservice. I think of fictional characters, such as Ned Stark for example, who could confidently lead men into battle but couldn't haggle or persuade to save his life (quite literally). Also, he didn't lead by threats or coercion.

I'm thinking of breaking out Command as a separate skill (still based on CHA). A high command would allow a character with authority over others to rally troops in a battle (for a warrior) or exhort followers into action (for a priest). Poor rolls could cause underlings to break or subvert your orders. I don't really want to use the Leadership feat for this, since I think any character could lead without a special feat and I would like it to be available to low-level characters without crippling them in combat or otherwise reducing their feat selection.

Has anyone done anything similar to this or have any ideas for how I might implement this?

 

[Greenfield]

Look at the Leadership feat.

It includes a number of followers who don't need to be paid, yet will follow where you lead.

Now consider a King as having subordinates, loyal followers who themselves may be of a rank and level to have the Leadership feat, and thus their own cohort and followers.

While a poor substitute for an actual chain of command, it's a workable framework.

Also look at Hirelings, people who work for you just for the pay. They take orders, though they expect "hazardous duty pay" for dangerous work.

Both of these mechanics already exist within the rules, completely independent of the Diplomacy system.

The problem with using Diplomacy for a command structure is that, inherently, anyone with a good Diplomacy skill can effectively take command.

 

[Dozen]

My campaign has a lot of servants and serfs, squires, and men-at-arms who are all bound by law or honor to their lieges. Often, the leaders must issue orders to their subordinates (one PC is even a knight) that involve lots of potential danger and very little "exchange." Really, the only reward the servant can expect is their wages or a small share of the spoils. Often, they receive no reward other than not being punished or slain for cowardice or insubordination. In the Alexandrian's rules, issuing a command would be too much like a negotiation. When the king issues an order to a commoner, how the commoner feels about the king and the relative quality of the order don't really matter. Of course, exceptions to this may apply (for duplicitous knights, traitors, and the like).
I'm thinking of breaking out Command as a separate skill (still based on CHA). A high command would allow a character with authority over others to rally troops in a battle (for a warrior) or exhort followers into action (for a priest). Poor rolls could cause underlings to break or subvert your orders. I don't really want to use the Leadership feat for this, since I think any character could lead without a special feat and I would like it to be available to low-level characters without crippling them in combat or otherwise reducing their feat selection.

Bluntly said, you have no reason to homebrew a new skill for this, because there are no rolls to speak of most of the time. As a general rule(pun intended), your subordinates are expected to and will follow your lead. Rolls should only be thrown if they have explicit reason to not obey, and there are few instances of that happening. Like you said, in a feudal system, you are bound by oath to follow orders. For the Lawful aligned, oaths in themselves mean a lot, but all others know what they sign up for. While various sources may imply this system was based on rich people standing up and saying 'I'm a noble, you do what I say or else!', all of their fellows were paid for their services, one way or another. Peasants usually had no land of their own, soldier wannabes needed training, equipment and someone to hire them, etc.. These people are literally indepted to their rulers because they let them simply exist by providing them with means to do so.

Imagine: You are a man who wants a family. You have no land, no worldly possessions and next to no schooling. What are your options? You either turn to banditry, poaching, robbing people, risking your life every day(Hint: most guys don't like the idea)... or serve a noble who gives you land to live on and pass onto your children and protects you. If everyone lives up to his side of the deal(A big IF, I might add), the noble is effectively your savior, while you are one of the servants who work day and night diligently to provide him with riches. In this relationship, you both have plenty a reason to help the other. So if your lord tells you to buckle up, grab your weapons and stand in the line, the last thing you are going to do to is trying to decide if you want to do it based on how convincingly he told you to. Hell, you aren't even likely to waste time asking questions. No, you grab your stuff and stand in the goddamn line because it's your job, and your lord makes sure either himself or through his commanders that as much of his men comes back from battle and as much of his holdings are unharmed as possible, you and your land included, because that's his job. There is no place for social niceties, this is what is expected of you.

Addressing the issue of risk versus reward specifially, you didn't think it through. Let's say a war broke out in your campaign. Most wars are fought over land and spoils. If your goals are not this straightforward, you might need some rolls to convince people to join your cause, but otherwise the defenders will have more than enough reason not to let their land and family get ran over. Because those lands and spoils? They are what everyone - the common folk, the merchants, the nobles - make a living out of. Even the mostly politically neutral bandits and heroes may involve themselves in a war if their own homeland is on the line.
On the other hand, the attackers are rarely like the Turks whose main force drived slaves in front of them as fodder. Your average soldier gets paid, and by commoner standards, paid a lot: just an extra gold a week supports a poor family's needs for almost a month, and boy, do the tables say their paycheck is a lot more than that! The leadership also provides rations, weapons and training for the army's own good; in the Middle Ages, this was a pretty good deal. There are of course common instances when these commodities can't be or simply are not provided. That results in riots, insubordination, low morale, deserters, and so on. In the latter cases, rolls (or more) are required, but you don't need to put effort into keeping an already working structure together.