Diplomacy: I don't think it is broken. Here's why.

[Wolfwood2]

I'm afraid you should re-read diplomacy before saying I made something up. You have just descibed two uses of opposed diplomacy check. "Influencing NPC attitude" DOES specify "you".

The logical flaw in that is that if Diplomacy is not the appropriate skill for influencing someone's attitude towards a third party, then what is the appropriate skill towards influencing someone's attitude towards a third party? What skill would you use to mechanically simulate that task if not Diplomacy?

I would argue that even if the strict wording says "you", it would still fall under Diplomacy as the closest applicable skill. One might certainly be justified in a circumstances penalty for using it on absent or uncooperative third parties, however.

 

[moritheil]

It always amazes me how many gamers completely ignore common sense. Brilliant, Airwalkrr!

The problem comes when the party argues that common sense says one thing and the DM argues that it says another thing. Hence the reliance on RAW.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

IMO the Diplomancy skill plays two vital roles within the framework of the game:

1: provide a non-diplomatic player the option to play a diplomatic character

2: provide the DM a defense against the 'but I convinced him' complaint.

If the skill exists in the game, then it should be fair and relatively easy to use. I tend to agree that it can be used as written when the GM and players both use the same common sense.

However, I also think the rules could use some cleaning up and addition of some options. For instance the option to 'pause' combat for negotion {also for Intimidate and Bluff skills} and clarification of bargaining options.

Haven't really seen a solid yet simple system that does this yet. Penumbra's social combat excells at this, however it turns bartering into a full-scale encounter

 

[RainOfSteel]

I also agree with most of what you have to say, except for:

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?

A player may believe that an offer cannot be refused, but this does not mean that this belief is true.

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. [...] A good Diplomacy check should not be required to get NPCs to act rationally.

A player may believe that the response they want from an NPC to an offer he/she makes is the only rational one, and therefore that the NPC should accept the offer as a rational act, but this does not mean that this belief is true.

Would you buy a brand new ferrari for a mere $5,000? Who could pass it up?

I would be extremely cautious.

If someone wanted a bauble from me that I thought had only a low worth, and that someone was willing to do something big for it, I would spend my time wondering what that bauble really was.

As the hypothetical King in this situation, I might say yes, but I would include a stipulation that if my court wizard found out (while the characters were out slaying) that the bauble was something worth more than X (some value relevant to the situation), then Y substitute would instead be the maximum payment.

If an offer sounds too good to be true, it probably is.


--------------------------------------


NPCs do not always act in exact the way a PC expects, and die rolls add the element of uncertainty into the situation. One where a purely arbitrary DM decision does not make the final determination. Although it is only my personal belief, if I don't have some type of control of the situation (my chance at success via a die roll), then I really might as well not have a character sheet or dice. It's back to the pre-RPG days of "I shot you first! Nuh-uh, I shot you first!" (Or, worse, just getting dragged along by main force through whatever tale the DM happens to be telling.)

 

[green slime]

With regards to the Ferrari, I'd pass.

1) $5,000 is a lot of cash to have on hand.
2) I already have a car
3) At that price, it is likely stolen, and I may end up on the bad end of a policeman's baton, as well as loosing the vehicle, never mind spending time with some very unsavory characters with a fondness for tender posteriors. Not a risk I'll take lightly.

 

[Darklone]

If you somehow make the BBEG friendly towards you, here comes that "Join Me, kill your friends and We shall rule the world!" speach.

Or the "I really like you, so I'm going to eat you last" speech, if the BBEG is a one-eyed guy living in a cave with a lot of goats.

Now I have that picture of the Ettin BBEG talking to his prisoners in my mind, one head looking like Frank, the other one looking like shilsen.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

We use the Diplomacy skill as a guideline, or the deciding factor if we can't make up our own minds.

 

[shilsen]

Now I have that picture of the Ettin BBEG talking to his prisoners in my mind, one head looking like Frank, the other one looking like shilsen.

Damn - that's just cruel and unusual punishment! What did that ettin ever do to you?

 

[geosapient]

I'm afraid you should re-read diplomacy before saying I made something up. You have just descibed two uses of opposed diplomacy check. "Influencing NPC attitude" DOES specify "you".

Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. 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.

See also: epic usages of Diplomacy.

Action
Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.

Try Again
Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.

Special
A half-elf has a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy checks.

If you have the Negotiator feat, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

Influencing NPC Attitudes
Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character, or wild empathy checks made to influence the attitude of an animal or magical beast.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/1074/diplomaticsnm8.gif

It does specify you, but in this instance can you distinguish whether it is you singular or you plural.

English is a horrible language that needs extra words added to define the meaning of other words for clarity. They could have said only your character (you) or you and your traveling group (you).

 

[shilsen]

To quote from the Role-Playing Game Manifesto...

"When Dice Conflict with the Story, the Story Always Win."

Personally, I think that's a horrible approach. As a DM, I'd never run a game, and as a player, I'd hate to be in a game where the DM would say, "Yeah, your dice may say that you just criticalled the BBEG, but since that wouldn't fit well with my story, you don't do so."

For me, the story is what emerges from the choices and actions of the players and how they interact with the world around them, and whenever dice are being rolled, they are being used to determine the outcome of such interactions.

If you think the BBEG -- not a minion or a mook -- should be immune from the PC's power of persuasion, so be it. Let the players learn it the hard way.

So where does the end of that slippery slope lie? Should the BBEG be immune to the PCs' attacks just because the DM wants it to be? Should he automatically be able to escape, even if there isn't any mechnaical justification for it?