Diplomacy on PC's

[Speaks With Stone]

I think its fine for the player to decide - but if a high charisma character asks something even barely reasonable with a good diplomacy roll and the player decides to ignore it, then I'd say that player is not role playing the scene very well. If there are strong reasons to ignore it (like sacred leopard cloak) then the barbarian should try to accomodate the intent.

I don't see it as a removing character free will, but if you refuse a reasonable request presented in a very reasonable manner then you are roleplaying a jerk. Other characters should notice this tendency and keep that in mind. They all heard the same convincing request and should be offended at your remark.

This way the player has free will, but there are consequences for ignoring the high charisma character. Otherwise the high charisma character will become nothing more than a mouth piece for the party. Someone you pull out when you want something, but otherwise ignore.

I think the example of a high strength character having to apply tactics to get full results from his stat is sort of on target - but social skills are clearly different. I may be a physcially weak person and roleplay the huge barbarian, but if I'm a bit of a cad then I can't roleplay the suave rogue?! I think the stats and the skill rolls are supposed to allow for instance those who are reluctant to speak up in a crowd to roleplay the persusive person. Say what you want and then have the DM filter it through the skill roll. The character is charismatic - not the player.

Just my thoughts on the issue. Social skills are already weak and certainly over time if someone is using force of personality to push other characters around would get old and perhaps build up a resistance. But if you travel with a hot playboy bunny who asks you to do a little more than the other companions, I think the average male adventurer should/would roleplay into that quite well. If they don't then they are clearly not acting in character (unless we make certain assumptions about their personality that are not in evidence).

 

[pawsplay]

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.

If Tumble doesn't cover that, what ability does? Maybe I want to do some rolls and cartwheels right past my enemies swings and thrust and drop kick my opponent.

Anyway. Die rolls represent unpredictability in the game environment. Your PC's voluntary behavior is never unpredictable. Even if a character can sweet-talk 95% of everyone into doing something for them, your character is allowed to be the 5% who doesn't. You are allowed to make decisions based on your PC's character concept, motivations, decisions, and impulses. To make a PC obey a die roll is to turn Diplomacy into a form of compulsion, and further to eliminate a player's choice to play the character they choose to.

 

[pawsplay]

but if a high charisma character asks something even barely reasonable with a good diplomacy roll and the player decides to ignore it, then I'd say that player is not role playing the scene very well.

Why? Some rolls fail because of NPC stubborness (you roll a 1, say). The PC may simply choose to be stubborn.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

If Tumble doesn't cover that, what ability does? Maybe I want to do some rolls and cartwheels right past my enemies swings and thrust and drop kick my opponent.

tumble reduces your movement. and you would have to make a tumble check for every threatened zone you moved though.

There is no ability which covers charging through a threatened zone, its just something you do when you want an attack of oppertunity. when you don't want an AoO, you go around or move a shorter distance using tumble.

kahuna burger

 

[pvandyck]

I understand that there are some players who would rather leave my group than have me (as DM) tell them that their players have been influenced to a particular decision by the charisma of an NPC or another player.

However, if the player refuses to roleplay the negative or detrimental parts of his personality, then I have a problem with his playing in my group, too.

For example, if a player has consistently built up the personality of his character as a naive, horny, country-bumpkin and suddenly, when presented with a female NPC with high charisma looking to influence him, he "decides" that he is stone-cold - (in reality because he has player knowledge that she's the kind of person that uses people for all she can get), I'd tell him he's not role playing properly. If he does this over and over again, I tell him I'm going to make the desision for him, unless he starts giving good (in-game without player knowledge) reasons why.

There are downsides to most personality traits, and it's poor roleplaying to ignore those downsides because you don't like having your character influenced.

Similarly, if the Evil Bad Guy has made and entire town of people love him, and the players have no reason to mistrust him (yet), they better have a very good reason to NOT leave their weapons outside the door, as he very nicely asked. In many cases I need to make it a dice rolling contest, cause experienced players simply are paranoid of everything. (If you were as paranoid in real life as my players seem in the game, you'd be put away - and die of stress at 25.)

pvandyck

 

[pawsplay]

when presented with a female NPC with high charisma looking to influence him, he "decides" that he is stone-cold - (in reality because he has player knowledge that she's the kind of person that uses people for all she can get), I'd tell him he's not role playing properly. If he does this over and over again, I tell him I'm going to make the desision for him, unless he starts giving good (in-game without player knowledge) reasons why.


Characters change all the time, though. If he wants to present his character in a different light, this attitude seems like a recipe for an argument. I'd rather just draft a plot that allows the PCs to behave in complex, interesting ways than depend on characters conforming to cookie cutter roles.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

but if a high charisma character asks something even barely reasonable with a good diplomacy roll and the player decides to ignore it, then I'd say that player is not role playing the scene very well.

Why? Some rolls fail because of NPC stubborness (you roll a 1, say). The PC may simply choose to be stubborn.

And if you roll a 1 then the diplomacy check would fail.

Again, if someone asks you to do something reasonable and they are saying it in a highly reasonable way (successful diplomacy check), would it be unreasonable to expect a person to be influenced. If there are specific reasons other than "I don't want to be influenced" then I think it is poor roleplaying. We are all influenced into doing things all of the time in real life. Player knowledge applies here in my opinion. People want to resist because they see the mechanic working "against" their character. They instantly become stiff necked because the player is aware of the mechanic. Whereas a successful skill check shouldn't be that apparent to the person being influenced.

Think of it this way. How often does charisma become a dump stat? How often does a character with really low charisma convince other players/characters to do what they want through in character discussion? Someone with a strong natural charisma playing a character with low charisma will still influence everyone around him if he is not encouraged to tone it down. That same character with no skills in diplomacy will frequently influence everyone around him by the personality of the player and most of us don't blink an eye when it happens. Free will is not subverted. The player convinces the player. Despite having a character with no skill or charisma.

Then the high charisma character with a shy player tries to do the same thing using his characters skills and everyone starts getting ill about being "forced" into something. The mechanic simulates the character influencing the character, but the perception is blown out of proportion as the player sees the mechanic and feels left out.

I'm only suggesting that if the players put themselves inside of their character and if "influenced" by another character they can still make choices for their character based on character knowledge and opinions and not based on the player disliking that his character was snookered.

We've actually had lots of similar instances and it can be a lot of fun. I've played a character who was a bound servant to another character. I had to do what he said, but I had lots of influence skills to shift his opinions around about what he wanted to do. I've actually done something like this twice. I've had players who interacted in similar manners and it always comes out enjoyable. Once you look at things from the characters view point, which is not the same as the players, these interactions can be a great deal of fun - if used sparingly to avoid derailing the adventure.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

when presented with a female NPC with high charisma looking to influence him, he "decides" that he is stone-cold - (in reality because he has player knowledge that she's the kind of person that uses people for all she can get), I'd tell him he's not role playing properly. If he does this over and over again, I tell him I'm going to make the desision for him, unless he starts giving good (in-game without player knowledge) reasons why.


Characters change all the time, though. If he wants to present his character in a different light, this attitude seems like a recipe for an argument. I'd rather just draft a plot that allows the PCs to behave in complex, interesting ways than depend on characters conforming to cookie cutter roles.

If a character changes to always do the smartest thing in a given situation, then he is not really a character, but a puppet. I think that roleplaying a weakness can be at least as fun as roleplaying a strength. Things get a lot more interesting that way.

As pvandyck says, characters tend to be obscenely paranoid because in D&D everything really is out to get you. I think players tend to adopt that stance and say, "Well, of course I'd do . . ." insert whatever joke you like from The Gamers (a great video you all need to see). A high level of paranoia can keep you alive but there is plenty of room for other approaches. Many of my favorite movies and books include plenty of examples of characters being duped, cajoled, or otherwise bamboozeled.

But if your players are unwilling to roll with the story and the other characters, then I guess you should stick with what works. There's no sense in causing problems where none are needed. What works for us may not work for you.

 

[pawsplay]

Again, if someone asks you to do something reasonable and they are saying it in a highly reasonable way (successful diplomacy check), would it be unreasonable to expect a person to be influenced.

That is entirely unreasonable. Being persuasive is not like being very strong. You can always choose not to be persuaded. A Diplomacy check determines the likelihood that someone will come to see things your way. A player determines when his character changes his mind.

It's very similar to alignment. The Monster Manual tells us that orcs are usually Chaotic Evil. That tells us how orcs should be roleplayed. But when a PC is CE, that tells us how he intends to roleplay his character.

A Diplomacy check tells us how NPCs will generally react to a PC. But we don't know how each individual NPC will react until the dice are rolled.

There are abilities that dicate PC behavior. They're called charm spells.

 

[pawsplay]

If a character changes to always do the smartest thing in a given situation, then he is not really a character, but a puppet.

What if the character concept doesn't include being a dupe? Being paranoid is itself a character flaw. A player is not obliged to do something stupid because it fits the story the DM wants to tell. It's no different than saying "Without thinking, you open the chest," when the player insists he does not open the chest. However much the DM may feel the PC would be driven by curiosity to do so, it's the player's choice.

As far as the storytelling goes, it is the player's right to tell the story they want to, within their sphere of control. When it comes down to it, their character's actions are the only thing they control in the game. Taking that away makes them a spectator rather than a participant.

A roleplaying game is a roleplaying game and the player has a right to be directive. In a certain sense, a PC is a puppet. It's the player's puppet, to which he has assigned a name, purpose, and attributes. To define how his character "should" act is to preempt his vision of the character in some small way.

There are games and situations where compulsions overtake character choice. But it strikes me as unfair at every level for the DM to dictate when a character will carry someone else's luggage. One character has a Diplomacy skill, but there is no comparative ability that translates as "I don't carry no luggage for nobody." At the very least, a player should be within his rights that unless the DM can argue some way otherwise, he is immediately Hostile to a certain course of action.

"This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of yourself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others."

Diplomacy cannot make even NPCs break character. While they may be influenced, they may still not be persuaded to change their behavior. Diplomacy affects only attitude, not behavior. Even a Helpful character may not spare a character a few silvers if he is miserly and believes the character is capable of getting some money in any other fashion.

Even if you allowed Diplomacy against a PC, you could be left with,

"I am willing to help you, but I'm not carrying your luggage for you. If you like, I'll take a second to show you how to stow your pack properly."