Diplomacy skill and adventure design.

[Shallown]

I had a question on the inclusion of the Diplomacy skill while writing an adventure.

Background:
I have thrown together a D20 Gamma World using the SRD for 3.5. I am writing a Mini beginning campaign to illustrate how the system works and because I wanted to. J .

So as part of this I was including skill use of know ledges and such when I realized all of the encounters designed mainly for role-playing and interaction didn’t include notes for use of diplomacy skill. I am caught between including the skill information or not.

Pros that I can see
It shows how Diplomacy works in the game as a skill by illustrating modifiers and starting attitudes.
It allows characters who invested in the skill to see a return on that investment.

Cons
May encourage more Roll playing versus Role playing .
Could, on a bad roll, alter the intent of the encounter, which may be to introduce a meta game idea such as rest area / safe place for a future tough encounter; or a source of information to help guide the characters.

I know I could lay it however I wished but what

 

[Frostmarrow]

I had a question on the inclusion of the Diplomacy skill while writing an adventure.

Background:
I have thrown together a D20 Gamma World using the SRD for 3.5. I am writing a Mini beginning campaign to illustrate how the system works and because I wanted to. J .

So as part of this I was including skill use of know ledges and such when I realized all of the encounters designed mainly for role-playing and interaction didn’t include notes for use of diplomacy skill. I am caught between including the skill information or not.

Pros that I can see
It shows how Diplomacy works in the game as a skill by illustrating modifiers and starting attitudes.
It allows characters who invested in the skill to see a return on that investment.

Cons
May encourage more Roll playing versus Role playing .
Could, on a bad roll, alter the intent of the encounter, which may be to introduce a meta game idea such as rest area / safe place for a future tough encounter; or a source of information to help guide the characters.

I know I could lay it however I wished but what

In my campaign I use diplomacy as a sort of social initiative. The player who rolls the highest diplomacy-check gets the attention of the NPC. The others can join of course but the winner of the check will influence the NPC more. If the check is lower than 20 the NPC will act superior to the PC. Otherwise the NPC will treat the PC with the respect of an inferior.

Pros: The players will get their ranks worth and can steer the encounter in whichever way they want given the circumstances. The DM can subtly influence the plot.

Cons: A runaway leader, diplomacy-wise, will get all the attention all the time (unless the others try to catch up.)

Extra credit: You can use other skills to compete with diplomacy if you like, and role-play accordingly. For example you could use perform if you aim to entertain, or intimidate if you threaten the NPC.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Other than that you should include DCs for diplomacy and let the DM decide whichever route to take. It's the DM's choice and you should cater to him.

 

[gizmo33]

Could, on a bad roll, alter the intent of the encounter, which may be to introduce a meta game idea such as rest area / safe place for a future tough encounter; or a source of information to help guide the characters.

Yea, that's what happens when you let the players roll dice. They're the bane of story-telling. By "intent" I think you mean "intended result". I wouldn't bother randomizing elements of the adventure that you don't want to be random.

If you truly believe that there is more than one possible outcome to a situation, then the Diplomacy roll determines whether or not the outcome is the good one, or the bad one. If you've designed everything so that there is just one possible outcome, then I don't think there's room for dice rolls.

Roleplaying can be used to determine situational modifiers to the Diplomacy check. Another aspect of Diplomacy is the initial attitude of the creatures, which can also be determined by roleplaying. Also, roleplaying determines the content of what's said, and what exactly is to be gained and lost by the interaction. In other words, it's roleplaying that determines which NPCs the PCs talk to, and what they try to get them to do. Roleplaying determines what information is given to the PCs, and what information the NPCs have.

But if the adventure is linear enough, all of these variables have only one possible outcome, in which case the options for randomizing the outcome really aren't there. I guess the secret to using Diplomacy is to design things so that events can follow more than one path. Reconsider the design that says that "gaining the safe area" is the ONLY way to handle the upcoming tough encounter.

 

[Dave Turner]

If you aren't going to make players actually climb walls, hide in shadows, or swing their greatswords, then it's fine to make them roll for social interaction as well. If a character has 18 Strength and the player, for the sake of argument, would have the equivalent of 6 Strength, you don't make the player simulate breaking down a heavy oak door. Characters are not the players. If a character has 18 Charisma and the player has an equivalent of 6 Charisma, then let the player use the character's mechanical strengths, just as you would in any other facet of the game.

A player who isn't a good role-player/actor who makes a socially-focused character is just engaging in the same kind of wish fulfillment that the other players are involved in. One player wishes he could be a kick-ass warrior, one player wishes he could be a powerful wizard, and one player wishes he were a silver-tongued devil. The first two players get to fulfill their wishes through the rules. Why deny the last player the same benefit?

With that said, Diplomacy in the RAW leaves much to be desired. But Diplomacy should be a viable way to overcome obstacles and resolve conflicts regardless of the player's role-playing ability. Diplomacy is a mechanical skill in the game. It should be treated that way.

Could, on a bad roll, alter the intent of the encounter, which may be to introduce a meta game idea such as rest area / safe place for a future tough encounter; or a source of information to help guide the characters.

These are problems of adventure design and DMing, not the Diplomacy skill.

 

[Frostmarrow]

If you aren't going to make players actually climb walls, hide in shadows, or swing their greatswords, then it's fine to make them roll for social interaction as well. If a character has 18 Strength and the player, for the sake of argument, would have the equivalent of 6 Strength, you don't make the player simulate breaking down a heavy oak door. Characters are not the players. If a character has 18 Charisma and the player has an equivalent of 6 Charisma, then let the player use the character's mechanical strengths, just as you would in any other facet of the game.

A player who isn't a good role-player/actor who makes a socially-focused character is just engaging in the same kind of wish fulfillment that the other players are involved in. One player wishes he could be a kick-ass warrior, one player wishes he could be a powerful wizard, and one player wishes he were a silver-tongued devil. The first two players get to fulfill their wishes through the rules. Why deny the last player the same benefit?

With that said, Diplomacy in the RAW leaves much to be desired. But Diplomacy should be a viable way to overcome obstacles and resolve conflicts regardless of the player's role-playing ability. Diplomacy is a mechanical skill in the game. It should be treated that way.

These are problems of adventure design and DMing, not the Diplomacy skill.

For me, the role-playing that takes place around the table is the game. Moving minis around and rolling dice is just a game within the game. It's good old fun. However, there is a reward in role-playing around an obstacle that just isn't awarded by rolling dice. There is no denying that.

For sure, if your character is a silver-tongued devil then the system needs to take that into account. If your DM won't listen to your person he might have to listen to your scores. Still there are other ways that will allow a player to eat the cake as well as keep it.

The problems of adventure design and DMing, as you mention, does keep rearing its ugly head. To me that says the diplomacy rules as written aren't perfect. On the other hand the idea of moving pieces around and rolling dice is. Its been around for at least a century and people keep doing it and having fun whilst. So, there is a problem with the diplomacy rules.

In Vampire the Masquerade there were rules for social interaction including rules for domination and awe that used hand signals. It worked better than dice rolling since it allowed people to have strengths, but the method used stayed within the medium of talking to one another. I'm not saying D&D:ers should start using hand signals just that there is a reason many people question the diplomacy rules, and that we should keep discussing them until someone comes up with something better.

We have today several options: RAW, Rich Burlew's variant, and straight role-playing á la 1st Ed (in 1st aid a people-person casts Charm Person a lot; a spell for those who lack charisma IRL.)

 

[AuraSeer]

I think all adventures should include supporting information for Diplomacy.

A great example that I've just encountered is the Eberron sourcebook Five Nations. Every major NPC description includes two kinds of details for use with the skill. First there are the personal modifiers for checks against that NPC. Second, it specifies what the NPC is willing to do for the PCs on each step of the social attitude scale.

For instance, in the description of King Kaius III it might say that you get +2 on Diplomacy checks for serving his nation of Karrnath, but -6 for being linked to his enemies in the Emerald Claw, and so on. It also lists the kinds of information he is willing to offer if you improve his attitude to Friendly, the level of assistance he'll provide when Helpful, and how his guardsmen respond if he becomes Unfriendly or Hostile.

 

[Shallown]

Gizmo33
Yea, that's what happens when you let the players roll dice. They're the bane of story-telling. By "intent" I think you mean "intended result". I wouldn't bother randomizing elements of the adventure that you don't want to be random.


It's not a matter, in my mind, of randomizing the event or element as much as providing an alternate frame work around an encounter that uses the diplomacy skill. I knwo how I run encounters and I don't usually need that frame work But I wondered if it would be useful to others.


Gizmo33
But if the adventure is linear enough, all of these variables have only one possible outcome, in which case the options for randomizing the outcome really aren't there. I guess the secret to using Diplomacy is to design things so that events can follow more than one path. Reconsider the design that says that "gaining the safe area" is the ONLY way to handle the upcoming tough encounter.


The adventure is not designed as a set path but a number of set encounters. Which way the players head defines what they encounter. It is however difficult (At least for me) to design an adventure that doesn't have some plans for what the PC's would do. Some safety valves to help the players achieve goals. Having the safe area is not required but admittedly does make the encounter easier and also more appealing.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Shallown
Could, on a bad roll, alter the intent of the encounter, which may be to introduce a meta game idea such as rest area / safe place for a future tough encounter; or a source of information to help guide the characters.

Dave Turner
These are problems of adventure design and DMing, not the Diplomacy skill.

I realize that but there is some limit to what you can put into an adventure so sticking with the most likely outcomes is the only, to me, logical way to write one. I know for some GM's Metagaming is a huge no no but I bend more towards the have fun and put something in front of the players they enjoy and I thinbk Metagaming is a useful tool in accomplishing that goal.



Auraseer
Thanks for that example. I haven't bought anything Eberron xcept the base book so Hadn't seen that sort of thing yet in an adventure.

Thanks for all the useful replies

Later

 

[gizmo33]

It's not a matter, in my mind, of randomizing the event or element as much as providing an alternate frame work around an encounter that uses the diplomacy skill.

I don't know what you mean here. From what I can tell from your examples, there were two problems with diplomacy: 1. it diminished the significance of players RPing their characters 2. the dice roll could lead to unanticipated consequences. Those were the two points I had in mind in my previous post.

The adventure is not designed as a set path but a number of set encounters. Which way the players head defines what they encounter. It is however difficult (At least for me) to design an adventure that doesn't have some plans for what the PC's would do. Some safety valves to help the players achieve goals. Having the safe area is not required but admittedly does make the encounter easier and also more appealing.

Well then a failed diplomacy check wouldn't be the end of the world, so I don't see what the problem is IIRC. It sounded before like you were saying that "if the PCs don't make their diplomacy check, the whole adventure goes down the drain". And now it sounds like "if they don't make the diplomacy check, things are harder." (I hope I'm reading it right).

But if, during combat, they don't make their saving throw, things are harder too. The situation doesn't have to be much different. Sometimes bad things happen. That may not be what you find "appealing", and I guess it's a matter of gaming style, but bad consequences for bad dice rolls is part of the game IMO.

I know you're probably working on stuff that's proprietary, but I suspect I could understand the situation better with some specific examples.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

A couple of things...

On a diplomacy check, basically only a Hostile (who's probably going to attack you anyway, not giving you time to perform a proper Diplomacy check) or Unfriendly character is going to become Hostile afterwards, and then, only on a really abysmal roll. So... in the case that you don't want a 'safe' area with an NPC to become unsafe (due to the NPC in the area becoming hostile, or whatever), then you can avoid that by making the starting attitude of that NPC be Indifferent, or better, towards the PCs.

One way that you might be able to encourage the use of the Diplomacy skill, without making its use necessary, would be to simply include the (most likely) starting Attitude of the NPC...

For instance: Ranger Rick, a dwarven ranger who keeps an unofficial eye on a well established rest-stop and camp-site along a long trade route through the untamed wilderness between to largish communities, is generally Friendly. He is Indifferent to those with orc blood, and Hostile to those who openly worship evil gods.

A line or two, with a little reference to the Diplomacy skill (the Attitudes are capitalized, to make them stand out as a game term) for the DM should give him a reasonable reminder that the Diplomacy skill is an option, but does not really require its use.

Later
silver