Diplomacy Checks

[Kaledor]

Alright reading the Diplomacy Skill has left our gaming group in a bit of a bind.

The first section of the skill reads:

...In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

Emphasis added is mine.

What is an "advantage"?
Does it relate to the chart included with the skill?
Or is that chart only used when it is NOT an opposed Diplomacy check?

If that's the case, when would you make opposed checks?
-- Is it only when two parties are trying to influence a third party?
-- Or is it used when two parties Diplomatically "Square" off against each other and they want to influence each other?*



*This is how the bind came up.
The Players encounter a town Sherrif. The Diplomatic Player attempts to influence the Sherrif to make her more friendly to the group. Since the group is already under suspicion, I ruled that a straight up Diplomacy check is too easy of a roll for the players.

**The players were not using the Diplomacy Check to prove their innocence. There were the prerequisit Bluff and Sense Motive rolls... they were using hte Diplomacy to try and influence her to a more positive light.


My Original thought was to have them make opposed Dip Checks and the winner gains the "advantage" -- what that meant depended on the difference of the results.

Second thought was to have the player make a single roll and have the NPC's Diplomacy Bonus provide a penalty to the Player's Check.

Third thought was to make the Sherrif HOSTILE (but she was not really, just UNFRIENDLY at worst).



ANY THOUGHTS???

 

[Christian]

ANY THOUGHTS???

My general strategy for this sort of situation is to apply strategy is to apply the NPC attitude descriptions through a lens of relationship and situation. The sheriff probably does start out as unfriendly rather than hostile, and it would be pretty easy for a character with a decent Diplomacy skill to change his attitude to friendly. Does that mean that the investigation gets called off? Of course not. If one of the sheriff's friends were under suspicion, he would still be investigated--you don't get a free pass on crime because the cops are your buddies. But, the diplomat would be viewed in a much more positive light--any circumstantial evidence that came to light would be viewed in the most positive way rather than the most negative, for instance. A character who might have been locked up pending the completion of the investigation might be released on his own recognizance or with a posting of bail; "Just don't leave town." Etc.

 

[Nail]

The Players encounter a town Sherrif. The Diplomatic Player attempts to influence the Sherrif to make her more friendly to the group. Since the group is already under suspicion,.....

Since the group is already under suspicion, the Sherrif would be treated as "Unfriendly". (Read the description: Possible actions - Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult.)

The PC must make a DC 15 check to change that to Indifferent, which means "socially expected interaction". Note this does not mean they are no longer under suspicion! It just means the sherrif won't be rude about it.

A higher DC would make the sherrif freindly, etc....but you'd still get to decide (as the DM) how a friendly sherrif might help a group of PCs under suspicion. Does he help them get out of town? Etc.

Winning a diplomacy check doesn't mean yer innocent, kiddo.

 

[frankthedm]

*This is how the bind came up.
The Players encounter a town Sherrif. The Diplomatic Player attempts to influence the Sherrif to make her more friendly to the group. Since the group is already under suspicion, I ruled that a straight up Diplomacy check is too easy of a roll for the players.

My Original thought was to have them make opposed Dip Checks and the winner gains the "advantage" -- what that meant depended on the difference of the results.

The set DCs of diplomacy only benefit the diplomatic character. The table is only for changing NPC opinions towards the character with diplomacy. The opposed rolls are for situations such as these. The diplomatic character first changes the sheriff's attitude towards him from hostile or indifferent to friendly or helpful. Then the diplomatic character can attempt opposed diplomacy rolls if the sherrif is willing.

 

[Kaledor]

The PC must make a DC 15 check to change that to Indifferent, which means "socially expected interaction". Note this does not mean they are no longer under suspicion! It just means the sherrif won't be rude about it.

A higher DC would make the sherrif freindly, etc....but you'd still get to decide (as the DM) how a friendly sherrif might help a group of PCs under suspicion. Does he help them get out of town? Etc.

Winning a diplomacy check doesn't mean yer innocent, kiddo.

I understand that Diplopmacy != Innocence.
Innocence and guilt will be based off her belief (Sense Motive) of their Statements (in this case Bluffs... b/c they were guilty and trying to hide it). However, my arguement was, the sherrif should be actively trying to not have her attitude changed by a group under suspicion. Meaning that Diplomacy should be harder.

Consider a different situation with a similar problem:
How would a skilled and charismatic diplomat react when the PCs try and use diplomacy on her? The Diplomacy check should be more difficult b/c the target in question is more skilled in recognizing the effects and more skilled at avoiding the effects (persumably).


Leading back to my original questions:
Should it be an opposed check?
Should it be a flat penalty?
Should the Sherrif be considered to be one category worse for purposes of adjudicating the results of the Diplomacy Check?


What is an opposed check used for, AND what is the "definition" of advantage?
Is "advantage" something that is just DM'd based on the results and ciurcumstances?

 

[Kaledor]

I'm unclear on Frank's response...

The diplomatic character first changes the sheriff's attitude towards him from hostile or indifferent to friendly or helpful. Then the diplomatic character can attempt opposed diplomacy rolls if the sherrif is willing.

Could you elaborate?

If I'm understanding your post:

Player rolls a Diplomacy Check (no pentalties, not opposed) to influence the NPC.
MAybe the NPC will be more friendly, maybe not...


--OR--

If both sides attempt to use Diplomacy on each other the Player rolls an opposed Check and if they win they get an advantage (??) in the current circumstance. If the NPC wins then they get the advantage (??).


And again were back to the DM ruling what an "advantage" is... which I'm okay with. I just want to make sure that's what is meant by the rule.

 

[newgrace]

I know a vs check with diplomacy results in haggling, such as trying to have a shop owner reduce his prices. Then its his diplomacy vs yours.

But another thing to keep in mind, is diplomacy takes time. My character heavily uses the social skills, and the majority of my diplomacy time is spent just trying to make friends among the guards of a city at night, and I provide him hours to do so.

When the party comes up to the sherrif, provide them negatives for trying to perform a quick diplomacy, perhaps negatives if they are already suspected of a crime.

Were not talking about a distrusting sherrif meeting a new person, were talking a distrusting sherrif meeting a new person in the belief that they commited a crime. Why would he stop and chat with you for awhile? Is he really going to be that easy to make friendly by someone who isnt already a trusted citizen?

 

[Votan]

Since the group is already under suspicion, the Sherrif would be treated as "Unfriendly". (Read the description: Possible actions - Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult.)

The PC must make a DC 15 check to change that to Indifferent, which means "socially expected interaction". Note this does not mean they are no longer under suspicion! It just means the sherrif won't be rude about it.

A higher DC would make the sherrif freindly, etc....but you'd still get to decide (as the DM) how a friendly sherrif might help a group of PCs under suspicion. Does he help them get out of town? Etc.

Winning a diplomacy check doesn't mean yer innocent, kiddo.

Part of the problem is what does friendly mean in this context. What I dislike about diplomacy rules is that, given the fixed DCs, a good diplomat can nearly always talk people into being freindly (even from hostile). But what does this mean in real game terms?

Does a LG sheriff still prosecute? Does a dragon feel badly when eating the nice adventurer? How much does this change things?

 

[el-remmen]

If you think it should be harder just apply a circumstance penalty.

This is a particular circumstance where while not hostile, affecting the sheriff's attitude should be more difficult.

I think the rules suggest +2/-2 for circumstance modifiers, but I recommend just using your best judgment: -3, -4, -6, whatever. . .

 

[irdeggman]

Check out Complete Adventurer pg 99.

It all keys around changing the NPC's attitude. Applying the opponent's Diplomacy modifier tothe required DC.

It appears to me that the sheriff incident wasn't diplomacy but a bluff since the characters weren't really "negotiating".