Diplomacy on PC's

[Kahuna Burger]

Speaking as a low charisma player I would say be careful implementing this. Her high Charisma and diplomacy skills mean she's such a 'little darling' that people will help her even if she is being technically rude.

By all means, penalise my Diplomacy roll if I'm role-playing it badly - just don't negate all the points I spent on that skill.

[no I'm not the player involved I'm just standing up for the Shy huddled masses]

I think you're missing the point. One, I've already made my feelings on high cha clear. It does NOT make you likable. Indimidate is based on Cha for a reason. And in the real world I know plenty of charismatic jerks and even more very likable shy guys...

Second, and more importantly, I'm not suggesting penalizing someone for their roleplaying. I would penalize them for their tactics. To use an odd example, a high dex, high tumble skill character under the effects of expiditious retreat could easily move in a wide circle and jump a couple of threatened zones without taking attacks to land right where she wants to. If she instead decides to charge through mutliple threatened zones and make an untrained bull rush on an enemy, she will take all the attacks of oppertunity. I will not alter her moronic tactics to what would work just because the abilities are there. Her dex or speed or skills will not help her when she is not using them, and the expiditious retreat may work against her by allowing her to move through more threatened zones than she would be able to normally.

If you are making an obvious attempt to be diplomatic, your diplomacy skill is in use. If your roleplaying is awful but you tell me flat out that you are trying to use the skill (and to what effect), we can work with that. But don't spit in the mayor's face then ask me why your diplomacy ranks aren't winning him over... It's the same reason all your spells aren't doing any damage when you don't cast them.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Madfox]

I'd be careful of this kind of DMing. I know that I, as a player, would never stand for a DM that told me who my character feels sorry for. It'd be an issue I would leave a game over. If your players are okay with this, or if you don't mind losing players, then that's fantastic. But just be aware that there are players out there who take exception to DMs who feel they can override a player's role-playing decisions.

IMO, the note in the DMG about players always deciding how their characters react is there for a reason.

There is a difference between hinting at how a character might feel and actually telling how the character actually reacts Though I do agree, that I would word it differently for the same effect.

 

[jgsugden]

I'd be careful of this kind of DMing. I know that I, as a player, would never stand for a DM that told me who my character feels sorry for. It'd be an issue I would leave a game over. If your players are okay with this, or if you don't mind losing players, then that's fantastic. But just be aware that there are players out there who take exception to DMs who feel they can override a player's role-playing decisions.

IMO, the note in the DMG about players always deciding how their characters react is there for a reason.

Your reaction to this type of DMing is unusual if my experiences mean anything. Telling a PC that a persuasive NPC has influenced them is not really different than telling them that an NPC has had an influence on them. If we don't allow these abilities to be used to influence PCs, we've negated a huge section of abilities in relation to PCs.

Don't get me wrong. I won't force a PC to take a particular action. I will, however, use these rolls to remind players that a PC's diplomacy abilitiy might be higher than that PC's player's diplomacy ability.

 

[orangefruitbat]

About the only time I allow rolls to dictate PC character beliefs is when metagame knowledge comes into play. For example, the PC rogue does something bad and has to explain it to the paladin PC.

The player of the paladin knows what is going on, because he's sitting at the table. However, he must successfully 'sense motive' on the rogue to see if he's sincere or not. Fortunately, my players are pretty cool about this and can roleplay the results properly.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I think you're missing the point. One, I've already made my feelings on high cha clear. It does NOT make you likable. Indimidate is based on Cha for a reason. And in the real world I know plenty of charismatic jerks and even more very likable shy guys...

Second, and more importantly, I'm not suggesting penalizing someone for their roleplaying. I would penalize them for their tactics. To use an odd example, a high dex, high tumble skill character under the effects of expiditious retreat could easily move in a wide circle and jump a couple of threatened zones without taking attacks to land right where she wants to. If she instead decides to charge through mutliple threatened zones and make an untrained bull rush on an enemy, she will take all the attacks of oppertunity. I will not alter her moronic tactics to what would work just because the abilities are there. Her dex or speed or skills will not help her when she is not using them, and the expiditious retreat may work against her by allowing her to move through more threatened zones than she would be able to normally.

If you are making an obvious attempt to be diplomatic, your diplomacy skill is in use. If your roleplaying is awful but you tell me flat out that you are trying to use the skill (and to what effect), we can work with that. But don't spit in the mayor's face then ask me why your diplomacy ranks aren't winning him over... It's the same reason all your spells aren't doing any damage when you don't cast them.

Kahuna Burger

As you say it is the INTENT that is important. Reading the (first) example given there are 2 ways of taking it :-

1) that she wishes to illustrate she is a weak (and slightly spoiled) character but is charismatic enough to get by without being a hindrance to the party.

2) she wishes to use her stats to brow beat the rest of the group.

If (1) is true then her stats should give her a bonus to the result even if the roleplaying was bad, if (2) is true then your suggestion of using her stats as a penalty is better (the PC is even more insulted than normal).

Without more info we can't know if it was an attempt at background role-playing that went wrong or a deliberate insult.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

As you say it is the INTENT that is important. Reading the (first) example given there are 2 ways of taking it :-

1) that she wishes to illustrate she is a weak (and slightly spoiled) character but is charismatic enough to get by without being a hindrance to the party.

2) she wishes to use her stats to brow beat the rest of the group.

If (1) is true then her stats should give her a bonus to the result even if the roleplaying was bad, if (2) is true then your suggestion of using her stats as a penalty is better (the PC is even more insulted than normal).

Without more info we can't know if it was an attempt at background role-playing that went wrong or a deliberate insult.

I'll give you that, and its the responsbility of the DM to seek clarification, but also that of the player to give some hints...

kahuna burger

 

[Vaxalon]

I will tell a player that his heart skips a beat when he sees the Sea Hag rising from the waves, but unless he fails his save, he doesn't lose the strength.

Basically, if there isn't a mechanic for it, then the player decides.

That being said, the player is always free to allow the dice to decide.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Don't get me wrong. I won't force a PC to take a particular action. I will, however, use these rolls to remind players that a PC's diplomacy abilitiy might be higher than that PC's player's diplomacy ability.

This is perfectly fine. But it's a far cry from:

If the result was 'hostile', I'd probably tell the target player, 'That whiny princess had the audacity to demand that you carry her around. That demand was the straw that broke the camel's back. You've lost your cool. Do you storm off angrily, yell at her or attack her?'

Wouldn't you agree?

The point here is that, IMO, the DM doesn't have the right to determine how a PC reacts, short of magical domination. Even to a +20 Diplomacy check. As a DM, I'm more than happy to slant the character's actions in a favorable (or unfavorable) light depending on how the roll goes, but if the actions are aimed at a PC, that PC's player still has the final say on how the PC reacts.

For instance, Bunny the Playboy model has a high charisma and a super-high diplomacy. She decides that she wants Ulfgar the Barbarian to place his leopard-skin cloak over a puddle, so she doesn't get her leather boots wet.
_________________________________

Bunny: I tell Ulfgar that I want him to put his leopard cloak over the puddle so I can walk over it. I want to be really diplomatic. Diplomacy roll: 40! Woot!

DM: Okay, you look over at Ulfgar and in the sweetest, most persuasive tones, ask Ulfgar to show you a bit of the barbarian honor you've always heard about. Ulfgar, she's pretty compelling, and she seems genuinely admiring. She indicates that a truly honorable man would place his cloak over the puddle, to prevent a lady from getting wet.

Ulfgar: Sweet words won't work on Ulfgar! His leopard-skin cloak is a sacred gift from his ancestors! If Bunny wants to keep from getting wet, she can walk around!
_________________________________

Did Ulfgar go against the Diplomacy roll? No. Bunny was persuasive. But it's Ulfgar's player's right to determine how his character reacts to that diplomacy. Not Bunny's player's. Not the DM's.

To use the previous example,

a one-off character with a Cha of 20 (though she wasn't being played like it - a thorough-going little princess-complex she had) *obliged* my character by force of "persuasion" to get someone to carry her because she said she was tired.

The princess can be as persuasive as can be. It's still the other players' right to laugh outright at her demand that someone carry her.

If PCs can be controlled through Diplomacy, this opens up a door that is NOT conductive to a good game, IMO. It basically makes the bard/paladin/sorcerer's player the defacto ruler of the party, which may be fun for that player, but not for any of the others.

 

[jgsugden]

The point here is that, IMO, the DM doesn't have the right to determine how a PC reacts, short of magical domination. Even to a +20 Diplomacy check. As a DM, I'm more than happy to slant the character's actions in a favorable (or unfavorable) light depending on how the roll goes, but if the actions are aimed at a PC, that PC's player still has the final say on how the PC reacts.

And in my example, the player does have the *final* say. I'm not really controlling how the PC responds. I'm telling the PC what he is responding to in a given situation.

If the uncharismatic player has his charismatic PC do something and explains it in an uncharismatic fashion, I'll filter it through the method I mentioned above. The same applies if a charismatic player has his uncharismatic PC do something and explains it in a charismatic fashion. In other words, the PC, not the player, should determine how effective the PC is in his negotiations.

Think of it this way: Pablo the Fighter has decided that he wants to help the local orphanage by donating gold to their cause. Pablo is in love with a local maiden, so he wants them to rename their orphanage in her name in exchange for his donation.

If the owner of the orphanage is an NPC, we roll dice and determine if that NPC iresponds favorably to the idea. We might modify this roll for things that Pablo's playerputs into the conversation, but in the end, a die roll determines how effective the negotiation will go.

If that owner were a PC, why do we completely remove the die roll? If Pablo is incredibly charismatic, why do we suddenly remove that die roll from the game and remove that PC component? If Pablo is very uncharismatic, why should the owner PC not be offended by his uncharismatic manner?

Telling a PC that he has been greatly offended and angered by what another PC has said is a fine thing. My simplistic example where I gave him only three possible courses of action was a bit unrealistic, but only a bit. In the end, all I really did was tell the PC, "You're offended by the way he made the demand because he made it so rudely. Act offended." If a low charisma and negative diplomacy PC demands something of another PC, there should be a good chance of them arguing about it. If the players decide to ignore that possibility, there should be a game mechanic in there to remind them of how they should be reacting.

Anyway, if you don't like the idea, don't use it. I'll continue to use it.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If that owner were a PC, why do we completely remove the die roll?

Because the owner is a PC. The player has the final say regarding how is character reacts, period. The only caveat is magical domination. I understand that you want the roll to mean something even when dealing with PCs, but for players such as myself, it is unacceptable. I get to decide how my character reacts to other characters, not a die roll.

Your previous example,

If the result was 'hostile', I'd probably tell the target player, 'That whiny princess had the audacity to demand that you carry her around. That demand was the straw that broke the camel's back. You've lost your cool. Do you storm off angrily, yell at her or attack her?'

did not, at first glance, appear to allow the player any control over his PC's reaction. He must be angry, regardless of what he would otherwise choose. If your player is allowed to respond to the prompt with, "none of the above, my character just laughs at her and goes about his business" then that's cool. If he must choose one of your three options, or something akin to it, then it crosses the line into a place I, as a player, will not go.

And of course you'll use what you like. I've never once said that your way is wrong, or that my thinking is right on this issue. I merely wanted to point out that there are players who feel as I do out there, so before Trainz adopts your system, he should consider how his players might react to it.