airwalkrr
Adventurer
A resurrected thread on the House Rules forum contains a tangent on Diplomacy and Rich Burlew's changes to it. I almost replied to it before I realized it was a resurrected thread. But it got me thinking... Diplomacy seems problematic if you take it at face value. But I think taking a loosely defined roleplaying skill at face value is the true problem.
Rich Burlew doesn't like the idea that Diplomacy can change someone's attitude. Ok, I can understand that. But I honestly don't think the designers of the game ever intended for a high level PC to be able to stumble into the BBEG and say "Whoa, let me just make a Diplomacy check. Alright, he doesn't want to fight us anymore." This is the commonly cited "abuse" of Diplomacy, but careful examination of the Diplomacy skill gives no indication that it can be used in this way. I believe the perception is that this use of the skill can be used to put the BBEG at a disadvantage, making the BBEG think the PCs want to talk while the PCs really just want to set up for a better position. But such deception is more accurately a Bluff check, a skill that, while it is still easy to max out, is not quite as abusable.
Allow me to discourse on the matter further. The only example the PH gives of using the Diplomacy skill to head off a battle involves an NPC vs. NPC battle, not a PC vs. NPC battle. Note specifically that the battle described is a head-to-head one between two warriors, not a mass melee. Clearly, heading off a battle would require some means of getting the attention of the battlers, and such is rarely easy to do in a large-scale combat, such as two armies fighting against each other.
Another important aspect of Diplomacy is that its definition is concise and contains no mention of how it affects trust. Ergo, it affects trust not a whit. An NPC might be Helpful towards your character, but that does not mean the NPC trusts your character. Trust often takes months or years to build up. The BBEG who has been made Helpful by Diplomacy does not trust you, and his attitude should automatically shift to Hostile if he detects any deception on your part, such as trying to stall him while allies move to flank. It should be pointed out that the rules for determining an NPC's attitude are loosely defined, meaning the DM should feel free to adjudicate it as the situation demands.
This might sound like a house rule, but it is really just common sense. In places where the rules are silent, the DM should make a ruling. How do you decide what an NPC's attitude is? Well, the DM should simply adjudicate that based on the situation. And since PCs altering the conditions can probably change that situation (and hence the starting attitude), Diplomacy does not necessarily have to be the only way to change an NPC's attitude. If the PCs make the NPC an offer he cannot refuse, why would he? Just because the PC failed a Diplomacy check? Why even ask for a Diplomacy check in that case?
This brings me to my next point. Skill checks are usually things that a player requests to do. They are player abilities that usually require actions and therefore the player must usually announce an intent to do so. The only exception to this is reactionary skill checks (like Spot checks to notice a hidden opponent). I dislike it when a DM tells me to roll a Diplomacy check, especially when my goal is not to change the NPC's attitude. NPCs are not static creatures that respond only when a Diplomacy check is rolled against them. They should react rationally (assuming they are sane) at all times given the circumstances. My wizard might not be a cunning negotiator, but when he offers to slay the evil dragon beseiging the kingdom for a simple trifle in the king's treasury of little worth (although it may have some significance to my wizard), the king should accept. A more skilled diplomat might be able to persuade the king that a comparatively disadvantageous reward is appropriate, but that is the benefit that comes with having a good Diplomacy check. A good Diplomacy check should not be required to get NPCs to act rationally.
Finally, I would like to say one more thing about the skill. Diplomacy must fit the situation. A DM should be perfectly within his right to say certain Diplomacy checks are automatically successful given the situation. My wizard in the above-described example for instance, ought to automatically succeed on his Diplomacy check to convince the king of something that is obviously in the king's best interest and costs him very little. Would you buy a brand new ferrari for a mere $5,000? Who could pass it up? Likewise, the heroes brandishing wands and weapons should automatically fail a Diplomacy check against the BBEG as it is obvious they are looking for a fight. Asking to talk in such a situation is really just a Bluff check and should be treated as such (with an appropriate bonus to the BBEG given the hard-to-believe nature of the situation). Even if your character honestly does just want to talk and your friends are still bristling for a fight, the BBEG isn't going to ignore them to talk to you. He will dispatch your allies quickly and efficiently before entering into a polite conversation.
To summarize, Diplomacy is simply a skill that requires a bare modicum of common sense to adjudicate. Like many rules, if you take them too literally, they ruin the game. But taken as they were meant to be used, as a guideline for adjudicating social interaction involving characters who are more skilled with words than their players, the skill is not "broken" at all.
Rich Burlew doesn't like the idea that Diplomacy can change someone's attitude. Ok, I can understand that. But I honestly don't think the designers of the game ever intended for a high level PC to be able to stumble into the BBEG and say "Whoa, let me just make a Diplomacy check. Alright, he doesn't want to fight us anymore." This is the commonly cited "abuse" of Diplomacy, but careful examination of the Diplomacy skill gives no indication that it can be used in this way. I believe the perception is that this use of the skill can be used to put the BBEG at a disadvantage, making the BBEG think the PCs want to talk while the PCs really just want to set up for a better position. But such deception is more accurately a Bluff check, a skill that, while it is still easy to max out, is not quite as abusable.
Allow me to discourse on the matter further. The only example the PH gives of using the Diplomacy skill to head off a battle involves an NPC vs. NPC battle, not a PC vs. NPC battle. Note specifically that the battle described is a head-to-head one between two warriors, not a mass melee. Clearly, heading off a battle would require some means of getting the attention of the battlers, and such is rarely easy to do in a large-scale combat, such as two armies fighting against each other.
Another important aspect of Diplomacy is that its definition is concise and contains no mention of how it affects trust. Ergo, it affects trust not a whit. An NPC might be Helpful towards your character, but that does not mean the NPC trusts your character. Trust often takes months or years to build up. The BBEG who has been made Helpful by Diplomacy does not trust you, and his attitude should automatically shift to Hostile if he detects any deception on your part, such as trying to stall him while allies move to flank. It should be pointed out that the rules for determining an NPC's attitude are loosely defined, meaning the DM should feel free to adjudicate it as the situation demands.
This might sound like a house rule, but it is really just common sense. In places where the rules are silent, the DM should make a ruling. How do you decide what an NPC's attitude is? Well, the DM should simply adjudicate that based on the situation. And since PCs altering the conditions can probably change that situation (and hence the starting attitude), Diplomacy does not necessarily have to be the only way to change an NPC's attitude. If the PCs make the NPC an offer he cannot refuse, why would he? Just because the PC failed a Diplomacy check? Why even ask for a Diplomacy check in that case?
This brings me to my next point. Skill checks are usually things that a player requests to do. They are player abilities that usually require actions and therefore the player must usually announce an intent to do so. The only exception to this is reactionary skill checks (like Spot checks to notice a hidden opponent). I dislike it when a DM tells me to roll a Diplomacy check, especially when my goal is not to change the NPC's attitude. NPCs are not static creatures that respond only when a Diplomacy check is rolled against them. They should react rationally (assuming they are sane) at all times given the circumstances. My wizard might not be a cunning negotiator, but when he offers to slay the evil dragon beseiging the kingdom for a simple trifle in the king's treasury of little worth (although it may have some significance to my wizard), the king should accept. A more skilled diplomat might be able to persuade the king that a comparatively disadvantageous reward is appropriate, but that is the benefit that comes with having a good Diplomacy check. A good Diplomacy check should not be required to get NPCs to act rationally.
Finally, I would like to say one more thing about the skill. Diplomacy must fit the situation. A DM should be perfectly within his right to say certain Diplomacy checks are automatically successful given the situation. My wizard in the above-described example for instance, ought to automatically succeed on his Diplomacy check to convince the king of something that is obviously in the king's best interest and costs him very little. Would you buy a brand new ferrari for a mere $5,000? Who could pass it up? Likewise, the heroes brandishing wands and weapons should automatically fail a Diplomacy check against the BBEG as it is obvious they are looking for a fight. Asking to talk in such a situation is really just a Bluff check and should be treated as such (with an appropriate bonus to the BBEG given the hard-to-believe nature of the situation). Even if your character honestly does just want to talk and your friends are still bristling for a fight, the BBEG isn't going to ignore them to talk to you. He will dispatch your allies quickly and efficiently before entering into a polite conversation.
To summarize, Diplomacy is simply a skill that requires a bare modicum of common sense to adjudicate. Like many rules, if you take them too literally, they ruin the game. But taken as they were meant to be used, as a guideline for adjudicating social interaction involving characters who are more skilled with words than their players, the skill is not "broken" at all.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
