Diplomacy - by the rules

[Frostmarrow]

Pretty often on these boards the age old question of dice rolling versus social interaction comes up. Recently I've come to the realisation that many of us don't play by the actual rules when it comes to this, and that that might be the reason behind the need to constantly challenge this aspect of the game.

It really is pretty simple. You use your social skills such as Diplomacy to influence the attitudes of NPCs. When you have an encounter the DM assigns an initial attitude that the NPCs have. If you try to influence their stance you roll a check. This establishes the mood for the encounter. Sometimes the NPC will be hostile and attack (or flee), sometimes they will not give the characters any of their time or effort, and yet at other occasions the NPCs will chat or even help the characters out.

You still need to role-play these situations. The roll is only used to set the attitude. If the NPCs are friendly (or have become influeced to that attitude) you can expect the NPCs to chat, advise, offer limited help or advocate. This still leaves plenty of room for wittisms, bravado, or showing off your legendary poker face. -It even leaves the field open to blatant attempts of bribery.

So even if His Royal Highness has a helpful attitude towards the party, the king will not free your imprisoned friend no matter how high the check might be - unless of course the proper evidence of your companion's innocence can be presented. The king will probably free the companion when presented the evidence even if he is unfriendly, though. The difference is that if he is helpful he might point out what kind of evidence he needs or even grant the party some kind of writ, to ease investigations.

How many have tried this approach? Hands up!

 

[Psion]

How many have tried this approach? Hands up!

I have using something pretty close to that since day one.

The diplomacy rules as written are pretty cut-and-dried. I only use it in cases where the NPCs resistance to sweet talking is pretty minimal. No matter the case, you aren't going to cause someone to go against their own motivations unless it is in their best interest.

I use roleplaying to set the DC and possible results of a roll.

FWIW, if you are looking for something a little more sensible for an explicit diplomacy rule, check out Rich "Order of the Stick" Burlew's page:
http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html

 

[Frostmarrow]

Thanks, Psion. It was an interesting read. His ideas flows better with player expectation then the 3.5E rules does. Still - his method would make any actual role-playing obsolete. I'd better read the rest of his writings.

 

[Psion]

That's why I said "if you are looking." I still use my ad hoc method, but I do think his method is good if you have a non-plot-central diplomacy thing you don't need to roleplay.

 

[Thanee]

Well, I usually use social interaction rules as a base for roleplaying. That is, determine what happens, then play it to that point. Sometimes, usually in unimportant situations (i.e. bartering over a price), the roll alone will do, at other times, the roleplaying decides the roll or a shift in attitude. Really depends on the importance of the situation and the general mood.

Sometimes I request a roll during roleplaying, to see, whether the current attitude would change enough to go into a certain direction, i.e. if a PC asks for something, to determine, whether it would be granted or not.

Needless to say, that this is done in a very rough way, setting DCs ad hoc. I don't think I ever looked up the NPC reaction table during play in my whole life.

Bye
Thanee

 

[takyris]

Yep, I adopted this after finally figuring out how the rules were supposed to work, along with using Sense Motive as "General feeling you get from dude during conversation" as opposed to the lie-detector method that people often misuse it as.

I'd like to see more variations in the definitions, though. I use Unfriendly for everything from "Dislikes you because he is racially prejudiced against you" to "Is terrified and stressed out and not really friendly with anyone at the moment". And I use "Friendly" for everything from "Has been won over by your kind words" to "Now respects you as a player in the game and is going to treat you as an equal, which might mean assassination attemps" to "Hates your guts but has to admit that you're competent, so he can't in good faith testify to your inability in a court of law".

 

[Quasqueton]

I use "Friendly" for everything from "Has been won over by your kind words" to "Now respects you as a player in the game and is going to treat you as an equal, which might mean assassination attemps" to "Hates your guts but has to admit that you're competent, so he can't in good faith testify to your inability in a court of law".

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

"He's 'Friendly' toward you now, so he may send an assassin to kill you." ?!

What is the problem with DMs disliking the idea of a PC making friends with NPCs?

"No! You're supposed to be attacked by the orcs, and fight your way to their chief. Not this stupid happy talk."

Quasqueton

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's pretty much how I would rule it. But, I differ as to the situation below--that would depend very much upon the king.

Some kings would be willing to grant pardon for offenses against other people (particularly against people they don't like) just because a friend asked them. In the sagas, it was fairly common for people to make amends with their enemies because one of their friends pleaded on that enemy's behalf. Some kings would grant pardon if a good enough argument were presented to them as well. A king might decide not to do so if the crime were grave or he had some ill-will toward the particular individual in prison. Still, it's important to remember that most ancient societies were not bound by the idea of the rule of law and, even in those that were, kings generally have the power to pardon wrongdoing. Heck, in our society, presidents and governers still have that power.

The king also wouldn't necessarily free the companion if evidence of innocence were presented. The king might decide to suppress the evidence or arrange to have someone kill the companion before the official declaration of innocence became active. ("Tragic. Just tragic. It appears that he was killed by rats in his cell/died of heart failure the day before he was to be released.") Not all kings are just.

So even if His Royal Highness has a helpful attitude towards the party, the king will not free your imprisoned friend no matter how high the check might be - unless of course the proper evidence of your companion's innocence can be presented. The king will probably free the companion when presented the evidence even if he is unfriendly, though. The difference is that if he is helpful he might point out what kind of evidence he needs or even grant the party some kind of writ, to ease investigations.

How many have tried this approach? Hands up!

 

[takyris]

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

"He's 'Friendly' toward you now, so he may send an assassin to kill you." ?!

What is the problem with DMs disliking the idea of a PC making friends with NPCs?

"No! You're supposed to be attacked by the orcs, and fight your way to their chief. Not this stupid happy talk."

Quasqueton

Quas, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't really give great context there, so allow me to explain:

The d20 Modern party walks into a meeting between rival gangs. They're about to be attacked as outsiders, but the party face-man does some massive Charisma-fu and turns them from Unfriendly to Friendly.

Now, does Friendly mean that the SharpShootahz Lieutenant suddenly wants to take the PCs home to his mom? No. It means that he has moved to a friendly interpretation of the PCs' actions under the circumstances. Instead of summarily attacking the PCs for busting in on a meeting they weren't invited to, he says, "Sure, c'mon and represent. What kinda stake you got in this?" He invites them to participate as equals. He offers them a drink. He tries to get them to side with him against the other gang.

In his mind, the PCs are now forces to be respected. He isn't going to just attack them, and he bears them no ill will. However, if events in the situation dictate that the PCs are in the way, he will indeed send out a private hit squad to take care of things. Or, heck, maybe he'll do it personally, with a "Hey, man, so you know, it ain't nothin' I got against you. It's just business, know'm sayin'?" as he does. He'd do this to one of his own friends if the situation required it. The Diplomacy check hasn't altered his alignment.

So I possibly misspoke when I implied that the Friendly attitude would lead directly to assassination. What I meant was that assassination would be the way to deal with things if necessary, instead of just a casual attack.

It is completely plausible for a character to have a friendly or even helpful attitude toward someone while still feeling it necessary to kill them. Imagine two good knights who are charged by two separate fair maidens to battle to the death as a result of an argument between the maidens. The knights respect each other immensely, and they know that this is how things have to be. They'll fight honorably, they won't use dirty tactics, and there's no rancor involved in their fight to the death.

Or, on the more evil level, an assassin who grew up as a friend to someone who is now a paladin. He has to kill the paladin, since the paladin is hunting him, but he's still Helpful towards the guy. If they met in some situation where they couldn't fight, the assassin would chat the paladin up, ask about how the paladin's mom is, reminisce over old times, and utterly fail to understand why the paladin wouldn't share a drink with him. In his mind, friends sometimes have to kill each other because of business, and that's all there is to it. Why make it into something personal? Heck, if he succeeded in killing the paladin, he'd probably make sure that the body got properly laid to rest, and he might even pay for the burial anonymously (unless his job required desecrating the body afterward).

Playing alignment (or allegiance) against personal affection or respect for someone is a great way to get a more interesting character.

An evil overlord's henchman who is brought to Friendly by the captured party members might offer better food, give them water to clean with, and stop the ordinary thugs from torturing them -- unless he was ordered to torture them by his evil overlord, in which case he'll do so without flinching.

Make sense?

 

[StalkingBlue]

...

I'd like to see more variations in the definitions, though. I use Unfriendly for everything from "Dislikes you because he is racially prejudiced against you" to "Is terrified and stressed out and not really friendly with anyone at the moment". And I use "Friendly" for everything from "Has been won over by your kind words" to "Now respects you as a player in the game and is going to treat you as an equal, which might mean assassination attemps" to "Hates your guts but has to admit that you're competent, so he can't in good faith testify to your inability in a court of law".

Wow. That's just so brilliant. I love your approach.