Diplomacy - by the rules

[takyris]

Takyris, I like your interpretation of Diplomacy a lot . . . only I have one problem with it (for d20 Modern at least): the Negotiator. There it says that the Talk Down ability both turns the target Indifferent and makes them stop attacking you. Would you consider that a special case?

Hey Siamang,

Well, since it specifies that both happen, I have no problem having both happening. If Indifference automatically meant "Doesn't attack you", then all they would have had to write was "Turns Indifferent", so in the twisted world of overinterpreting-exactly-what-they-wrote, that sort of helps my argument.

However, lest I be thought of as incredibly semantic, let me note that in general, it's easiest to assume that most people attacking you are Hostile. The "Non-Hostile but attacking because of Social Constraints" aspect is, I feel, a viable and not unreasonable possibility, but it's by no means the usual way to do things.

And if I were a Negotiator, and I had just turned a room full of people with guns Indifferent and gotten them to stop firing at me, I wouldn't suddenly think I was in Baldur's Gate and able to search the room and take stuff while they sat there staring blankly at the wall. I'd say, "Okay, I've now got another chance to win them over, or I've got a chance to leave." As the DM, that's what I'd give Negotiator PCs -- another chance to avoid the combat (either by a better Diplomacy roll or a hasty exit), or a chance to gain ground with a double-cross and surprise attack.

Kahuna Burger: Ah, okay, yeah, that makes sense. My differentiatikon point was that I had previously been in games where things went like this:

BBEG: Now, I'll walk over here and lay down this scepter. Then I'll pick up the scroll you've laid on the altar. Then I will read the scroll to make sure that it is legitimate. And if everything is in order, then I will walk away peacefully and hope that you will do the same.

PCs: Okay, I want four sense motive checks, one for each of his statements.

Admittedly, the Errata I quoted is still up for debate, because at what point does a lie become a bluff? Personally, my thought (from my own real-life experiences) is that it becomes a bluff when you create an imaginary story that is more involved than a simple lie.

For example:

PC is a teen and comes home at one in the morning. Mom is waiting for him.

Mom: Where were you?

PC: Um, I was out studying with friends.

This is just a lie (the PC was actually out slaying vampires). Unless Mom is an investigator, she doesn't get a Sense Motive check.

However, Mom is not stupid, so she continues:

Mom: Really. And what were you studying? Who was there?

PC: Alex was there, and Birch, and Mister Guile from the school library.

This is gray territory. Maybe a sense motive check is in order, or maybe not. I honestly am not sure. However, when Mom says:

Mom: It seems awfully late, sweetie. You were just studying?

PC: Yes.

Mom: ... (obviously waiting for more)

PC: (gives in) Well, we were mostly studying, but then Birch kind of had a long dark moment of the soul because her girlfriend Dorothy wants to take a break, and she doesn't know what to do -- and Alex was really uncomfortable dealing with all of it, so he asked if I could talk with her in private, and I ended up listening to her talk about her personal problems for a long time. Really, I didn't want to be out that late either.

At this point, the PC is actually making up a story, which, in my mind, necessitates a bluff check and an opposing Sense Motive check. Just one, for that whole story, though.

That is, as far as I've found, close to what the book says, the designers have stated as their intent by the rules, and something playable enough to not make Sense Motive either underpowered or overpowered. That's just my opinion, though. I'm sure mileage varies.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Takyris you seem to be on to something. Attitude governs the way NPCs treat PCs.

 

[S'mon]

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

Me too! Me too!
Brilliant stuff takyris, this thread has been very helpful to me in getting a handle on the 3e Diplomact rules, which I was very uncomfortable with. Your examples are fantastic and have greatly helped show me how it should be done. Reminds me of Severian the Torturer in 'Book of the New Sun', he got so Diplomatised by a prisoner for torture that he did the unpardonable crime - he _let her die_.
Even in my D&D campaign, where the Big Alignment Boot acts as a huge barrier to empathy between foes, I've occasionally seen mutual respect develop between enemies. I see now that this can be tied into the Diplomacy rules, that they're not meant to be a pseudo-magical "charm person" or "dominate" effect that some people play them as. Cool.

 

[S'mon]

With setting DCs ad hoc, the players never know how much they will need to turn an indifferent NPC's attitude to helpful. With other skills, they can know exactly what they need. This becomes a problem because it is very hard for a DM to not base their judgement in part by what the die roll is. If a party only has 2 ranks in diplomacy, they will get on average between a 10-13. If they roll a 4, they would probably always fail and if they rolled an 18, it would seem very high and therefore probably succeed. On the other hand, someone with 12 ranks in diplomacy would average a 20-23. If they roll a 4, they would probably always fail and if they rolled an 18, it would seem very high and therefore probably succeed.

While I often set DCs ad hoc (including Diplomacy), I am careful not to do it with reference to the PCs' actual skills. In fact I prefer to maintain a 'veil of ignorance' and avoid knowing what the PCs' skill stats are, so the DC is unaffected by the fact that Sigurd has +16 Diplomacy or Cailin has +25 Spot. Sometimes that means they find tasks trivially easy or impossibly difficult. C'est la vie.

 

[S'mon]

From the d20 Modern Errata and FAQ, a statement that compares the Sense Motive skill to an Investigator's Discern Lies ability:

I am attempting to use it in that spirit.

Wow, taky, thanks again!
That d20 Modern stuff is _great_ - if only it, or words like it, had been in the 3.5 D&D Player's Handbook, we'd have saved a lot of trouble on the Rules Forum! - Go have a look at the "Sense Motive - Active or Passive?" thread. A few people, like Stalkingblue & me, have always used SM & Bluff pretty much the way the d20 Modern FAQ you quote makes clear is the designers' intended way, but although I somewhat felt I was doing it in accordance w the designers' intent (not always an overriding concern, mind you), we didn't have that much to go on from the PHB, it's really not that clearly written in the Bluff & Sense Motive descriptions there, and a lot of people on the thread took a very different approach - and some even seemed quite hostile to our approach.

 

[S'mon]

For example:

PC is a teen and comes home at one in the morning. Mom is waiting for him.

Mom: Where were you?

PC: Um, I was out studying with friends.

This is just a lie (the PC was actually out slaying vampires). Unless Mom is an investigator, she doesn't get a Sense Motive check.

For my D&D game, if mom-PC asked for a Sense Motive check at this point, I would allow it, and if it succeeded I'd say "He seems evasive" or similar. Mom-PC after all knows teen-PC well, and I'd think could read him like a book, even if her general Sense Motive skill wasn't high, so I'd think she wouldn't need the whole minute to talk with him that a stranger might need before getting the check.