Diplomacy on PC's

[Speaks With Stone]

Pawsplay
I think we are coming from 2 very different starting points, which is fine.

I'm not suggesting that players should be wafted about by the whims of anyone with charisma.

I'm not suggesting that a player can't have his character do what he likes.

What I am suggesting is that if a player has his character act in ways that are not consistent with the character, which was designed by the player in the first place, then that is poor role playing.

If I roleplay Captain Ahab and one day wake up and decide I'm not going to chase that whale any more because I'd much rather take up sheep herding, then that is out of character and poor roleplaying. Just because I as the player (or pupeteer) can see that nothing good is going to come of chasing the whale, and while I as the player can choose to have Ahab do whatever I like, it still is poor roleplaying. Why? Because it is not internally consistent or well developed in the characters experience and view point.

I'm not saying you can't do it. Just saying that it's not good roleplaying. In the same vane, but to less severity, I'm saying that if your character doesn't have stats or skills for countering influence, then you should be influenced when an influential person tries to convince you of something. I see that as part of the world's consistency. I as the player will always see things differently, but I'm supposed to act like the character would. And while sometimes in real life you can choose to be stubborn. Sometimes you are convinced to buy things you really don't need or want and don't realize it until later.

Perhaps the way we account experience accounts for some of the different views we have on the roleplaying aspect as we award experience for acting in character which we have found encourages us to strive for more consistency.

 

[pawsplay]

What I am suggesting is that if a player has his character act in ways that are not consistent with the character, which was designed by the player in the first place, then that is poor role playing.

Then you are saying water is wet. But you are also saying the player is not the arbiter of what is "consistent" with the character. Why can't Ahab herd sheep? That's not bad roleplaying, that's a decision to do something different. If the player sees "nothing good" of hunting whales, why must he hunt whales?

 

[pawsplay]

More thoughts:

Because it is not internally consistent or well developed in the characters experience and view point.

I'm not saying you can't do it. Just saying that it's not good roleplaying.

So you are saying realistic characters are not "good roleplaying." Real people are not consistent. Fictional characters are only consistent enough to do something inconsistent (and interesting). Othello is not "consistent"; he goes from an over-protective gentleman to an anxiety-ridden monster. Iago is consistent, and consequently, uninteresting; that is why the play is not called "Iago."

In the same vane, but to less severity, I'm saying that if your character doesn't have stats or skills for countering influence, then you should be influenced when an influential person tries to convince you of something.

D&D does not have a skill that allows you to make people do something they don't want to do. Diplomacy affects only attitude, it is not a suggestion spell. Further, there are no stats or skills for resisting Diplomacy in D&D, because that was never part of the design. Diplomacy is not "resisted," although it can be opposed. Diplomacy is not something you do to someone, it's something you try to do right, hoping your charm will cause them to take a favorable action.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

Well, that's just silly.

By your definition there is no action that could be considered bad roleplaying. Ahab could wear a tutu and nance about the ship.

If that works for your, go for it. But don't kid yourself that this is roleplaying. If you adopt a "role" it is supposed to mean you act like that person - not I have him do whatever I like.

And about Othello, please. Othello changes dues to the "influence" of Iago. He didn't just hop up and decide to be something else. Iago is one of the most copied and referenced villains because he is "interesting."

But I yield. I can't bear the direction this conversation has taken. Enjoy.

 

[Trainz]

For the record, I put that thread up for the benefit of an australian friend gamer of mine, I don't have such an issue.

Now that said, how we handle high charisma between players and NPC's is very simple: my players get informed that the NPC talking is very charismatic, and players take that into account in their role-playing. They really do. If they are suspicious of the NPC, fine, but they are aware that the NPC "makes an impression". No more, no less. How they take that into account in their response is their business alone. No roll of the dice necessary.

Now, if they want to find out if they have a reason to be suspicious, that's what sense motive is for. Opposed by bluff, which is modified by the NPC's charisma anyways.

Between players though... it's harder. I played an 18 charisma paladin (R.I.P. Sunless Citadel), and the druid kept jibing at me. It was all in good humor, but it diminished the fact that I was playing (and played well, IMHO) a very charismatic character. I more or less didn't mind.

But should a DM intervene and say "Look guys, Sir Hackalot here is very charismatic, and thruth be told, your PC's wouldn't really be behaving like this." ? I don't think so. It's just something that must be overlooked, unless players will eventually resent high-charisma player characters.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.)

If you're talking about experienced characters, then it's your own fault - if they'd been saved by the "leave your weapons at the door" request as many times as they've been screwed by it, then they might acquiesce.

If, on the other hand, every time the characters have been asked to leave weapons at the door, they've been jumped or otherwise severely disadvantaged, then they have, in character, a bloody good reason not to leave them there.

Also - if I wasn't paranoid and on the edge, and I was an adventurer, then I'd probably be dead long before 25.

Hell, if I made most of the accomodations that have to be made for a fun roleplaying game, and I was an adventurer, people would have to consider me a gung-ho moron. You know - things like accepting characters into the party without a full background check and demonstration of the full range of their powers, along with (possibly) a mandatory detect thoughts from the trusted party mage, and maybe even geasa from all party participants. Unless of course they were trusted childhood friends that I knew had the aptitude that adventuring requires.

OTOH, if you're talking about 1st level characters with no backgrounds, then perhaps you've got a point.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, that's just silly.

By your definition there is no action that could be considered bad roleplaying. Ahab could wear a tutu and nance about the ship.

Which is more or less sane than what he does in the book?

YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE GAME. YOU DO NOT GET TO SET THE CHARACTER OF PLAYER PC'S.

(Unless you're giving them pregens, which isn't really what's being debated here)

If the player plays out Captain Ahab the psycho whale slaughterer, that's fine. However if he decides to play out Captain Ahab the normal human being, who decides to retire when he loses a limb, that's fine too. You didn't make the character and you don't get to dictate where he goes.

If that works for your, go for it. But don't kid yourself that this is roleplaying. If you adopt a "role" it is supposed to mean you act like that person - not I have him do whatever I like.

But the role is one that the player dictates. If it's inconsistantly specced out, then the player basically gets to have him behave however he likes. If the character in the example was written up to be, and played out as, an individual who'll go out of his way to help a lady, then good for the player. If not, then obviously he's not the character you thought he was.

And about Othello, please. Othello changes dues to the "influence" of Iago. He didn't just hop up and decide to be something else. Iago is one of the most copied and referenced villains because he is "interesting."

So it's your job (as DM) to be Iago. BE IAGO. Don't just tell the player "Iago makes you do bad things. Choose some bad things to do please."

But I yield. I can't bear the direction this conversation has taken. Enjoy.

 

[Victim]

Well, that's just silly.

But I yield. I can't bear the direction this conversation has taken. Enjoy.

Exhibit A against your case. Regardless of the arguments used, neither you nor the other people argueing on this thread (pawnsplay) made much of a dent in each other's positions. Some people just aren't going to be persuaded about certain things. The whole message board is filled with stalemated discussions because people choose not to be persuaded.

As another example, look at (American) politics. Regardless of the charisma of the canidates, they still draw fire from their rivals and opposed groups. It takes a pretty poor canidate for Dems or Reps to make the parties' major supporters change sides, and probably not even then.

 

[CyberSpyder]

Exhibit A against your case. Regardless of the arguments used, neither you nor the other people argueing on this thread (pawnsplay) made much of a dent in each other's positions. Some people just aren't going to be persuaded about certain things. The whole message board is filled with stalemated discussions because people choose not to be persuaded.

With all due respect, I don't think anyone here is a master diplomat.

In fact, from what I've seen, all the rhetorical ploys being employed have been used to try to slam the people on the opposite side of the argument. The people being slammed can, of course, tell - this arouses ire in them and makes them dislike the other side, and its arguments, even further.

Stalemated discussions don't occur, largely, because people choose not to be persuaded - rather, they tend to occur because most people really aren't very good at persuasion.


In any event, my opinion on this - technically, yes, refusing to acknowledge another player character's use of social skills could be construed as bad roleplaying. The player characters are not, in theory, any less susceptible to manipulation than any NPC with the same statistics.

However, this is precisely one of those places where realism and 'perfect' roleplaying take a back-seat to the fact that this is a game people play. In a game, people want to have control of their character - if they don't have control, they aren't really playing, and if they have to lose control (as in the case of a 'dominate person' spell or somesuch), they want it to end as soon as possible.

It's for this reason that diplomacy isn't supposed to work on player characters - because this is, in the end, a game.

 

[pawsplay]

Even from the standpoint of what a character "should" do, D&D has no way to describe character attitudes about various proposals, nor does it offer any kind of skill to resist Diplomacy. As I noted above, Diplomacy can't compel anyone, not even an NPC, to do a task they find personally objectionable.