Diplomacy Skill Check Results

[Chimera]

I've noticed a "trend" of perhaps a pattern in the use of the Diplomacy skills by three different GMs I've played with. A pattern that I find disturbing.

A modified roll of 1 makes the person very angry and insulted.
A modified roll of 8 makes them like you a little less.
A modified roll of 12 is virtually "no effect".
A modified roll of 20 makes them your bud.

The problem for me is two-fold. One, I think they're too extremist on the degree of change due to the Diplomacy roll. There is no way that a Diplomacy check, in my eyes, should make the guy your lifelong enemy just because you rolled a 1, or your best buddy (effectively charmed) and/or do completely foolish things just because you rolled a 36.

The other is the pattern above. Below 10 makes for a negative result. Just barely above 10 means nothing. Only higher rolls mean anything. Certainly, in a higher level campaign or where you have a very charismatic talker, you can regularly achieve high numbers with less than average rolls. But when you are +0 or +2 or something similar, it appears that any Diplomacy you attempt has a better chance of making things worse than improving the situation.

One of the reasons this bothers me a great deal (and I will be discussing it with the GM in question this weekend), is that one of my GMs has been asking for Diplomacy rolls for every NPC interaction the PCs make, which is not only serious over-usage of the skill, but makes it extremely unwise for our non-diplomatic PCs to interact with anyone of note!

Has anyone else noted this problem in their games?

 

[DonTadow]

I've noticed a "trend" of perhaps a pattern in the use of the Diplomacy skills by three different GMs I've played with. A pattern that I find disturbing.

A modified roll of 1 makes the person very angry and insulted.
A modified roll of 8 makes them like you a little less.
A modified roll of 12 is virtually "no effect".
A modified roll of 20 makes them your bud.

The problem for me is two-fold. One, I think they're too extremist on the degree of change due to the Diplomacy roll. There is no way that a Diplomacy check, in my eyes, should make the guy your lifelong enemy just because you rolled a 1, or your best buddy (effectively charmed) and/or do completely foolish things just because you rolled a 36.

The other is the pattern above. Below 10 makes for a negative result. Just barely above 10 means nothing. Only higher rolls mean anything. Certainly, in a higher level campaign or where you have a very charismatic talker, you can regularly achieve high numbers with less than average rolls. But when you are +0 or +2 or something similar, it appears that any Diplomacy you attempt has a better chance of making things worse than improving the situation.

One of the reasons this bothers me a great deal (and I will be discussing it with the GM in question this weekend), is that one of my GMs has been asking for Diplomacy rolls for every NPC interaction the PCs make, which is not only serious over-usage of the skill, but makes it extremely unwise for our non-diplomatic PCs to interact with anyone of note!

Has anyone else noted this problem in their games?

I follow the diplomacy rules very loosely because of this. I don't put a number too it. REal life relationships don't have numbers or probabilities at all. I factor in the nature of the relationship, the roll and the roleplaying of the character.

 

[Christian]

I've noticed a "trend" of perhaps a pattern in the use of the Diplomacy skills by three different GMs I've played with. A pattern that I find disturbing.

A modified roll of 1 makes the person very angry and insulted.
A modified roll of 8 makes them like you a little less.
A modified roll of 12 is virtually "no effect".
A modified roll of 20 makes them your bud.

The problem for me is two-fold. One, I think they're too extremist on the degree of change due to the Diplomacy roll. There is no way that a Diplomacy check, in my eyes, should make the guy your lifelong enemy just because you rolled a 1, or your best buddy (effectively charmed) and/or do completely foolish things just because you rolled a 36.

...

Has anyone else noted this problem in their games?

Do you mean, this particular problem with the Diplomacy skill, or the general problem of poorly thought-out house rules? By the RAW, a Diplomacy roll will only have a negative result if it's less than 1 (i.e. a really bad roll plus a penalty), unless the opponent is already Unfriendly, in which case a roll of less than 5 can turn him Hostile. On the other hand, no roll of less than 15 can have a positive effect, regardless of the target's initial attitude ...

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

A modified roll of 1 makes the person very angry and insulted.

Umm, if you get a TOTAL of ONE on a diplomacy roll, you've said something very bad. You've insulted the person at the least, angered them more likely. Not permanent (unless you do it repeatedly), but when you roll: 1d20+Diplomacy Rank+Cha Mod & get a 1, you said somethin' nasty 'bout his momma.

A modified roll of 8 makes them like you a little less.
A modified roll of 12 is virtually "no effect".
A modified roll of 20 makes them your bud.

As for all the others; depends on the DC. Somebody who really agrees with you & wants to like you might only require a DC 8 Diplomacy roll. 12 should get you through any 'normal' situation with ease. A DC 20 might very well be needed to those dramitaccly opposed to you (at LEAST DC 20, you might have to hit 25, 30 or higher; say convincing a Red Dragon to give all his hoard to the needy).

Diplomacy is suposed to help equalize different players. Some are very good at being outgoing & friendly, others more reserved. If the PLAYER is good at Diplomacy, but his CHARACTER is a Cha 5 Half-orc; why let him 'Role-play' as opposed to 'roll-play'. He just got a skill for free if you never make him roll a die.

Likewise, a shy player with max ranks in diplomacy should be allowed to 'roll-play' from time to time, if for no other reason than to justify he investing ranks in a skill HE (not his character) can't use.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That's why I like the Diplomacy rules presented by the Giant.

http://www.giantitp.com

Look for his Function section.

 

[Silveras]

Do you mean, this particular problem with the Diplomacy skill, or the general problem of poorly thought-out house rules? By the RAW, a Diplomacy roll will only have a negative result if it's less than 1 (i.e. a really bad roll plus a penalty), unless the opponent is already Unfriendly, in which case a roll of less than 5 can turn him Hostile. On the other hand, no roll of less than 15 can have a positive effect, regardless of the target's initial attitude ...

Yup. The problem described sounds like a "custom version" that works nothing like the RAW.

In the core, the DM *picks* an initial attitude for the NPC, one that makes sense in the world. A shopkeeper is probably at least Indifferent, maybe Friendly. Any random NPC is theoretically Indifferent. A roll of 1 for an Indifferent NPC leaves them ... Indifferent, still. Even then, the roll only comes into play when the PC decides to either befriend (Diplomacy) or frighten (Intimidate) the NPC into being more helpful. See the PH, p. 72, "Influencing NPC Attitudes".

Of course, a DM can change the rule(s) that do not seem to fit the way s/he would like the world to work. It has been my experience, though, that such usually backfires, and requires more fixes on the fixes.

 

[Graybeard]

I agree with Patryn. Ever since I saw the rules for Diplomacy on the giiantitp.com site I have used them. A couple of other games I play in, the DM's have switched to those rules as well. You should look at them and suggest them to your DM. I ahve found they work well because they take into account the attitude of the person on the receiving end. I think you'll like them once you take a look.

 

[Celebrim]

I've noticed a "trend" of perhaps a pattern in the use of the Diplomacy skills by three different GMs I've played with. A pattern that I find disturbing.

A modified roll of 1 makes the person very angry and insulted.
A modified roll of 8 makes them like you a little less.
A modified roll of 12 is virtually "no effect".
A modified roll of 20 makes them your bud.

Where did that pattern come from? It doesn't resemble anything in the rules.

The problem for me is two-fold. One, I think they're too extremist on the degree of change due to the Diplomacy roll. There is no way that a Diplomacy check, in my eyes, should make the guy your lifelong enemy just because you rolled a 1...

It doesn't. I mean, at least under the rules as written it doesn't. Under the bizarre house rules above, it does. I don't plan on discussing them further, because there is no point. They aren't relevant to me, and griping about house rules is pointless. The rest of my discussion uses the rules as written at least as a starting point.

or your best buddy (effectively charmed) and/or do completely foolish things just because you rolled a 36.

It would only do that if character had no particular reason to feel ill will to you, and a 36 is a pretty darn good Diplomacy roll. That's a +16 bonus plus the roll of a '20', or a +26 bonus with an average roll. If you've got a +26 diplomacy bonus, you'd expect to be able to easily win friends.

One of the reasons this bothers me a great deal (and I will be discussing it with the GM in question this weekend), is that one of my GMs has been asking for Diplomacy rolls for every NPC interaction the PCs make...

Which he should IMO.

...which is not only serious over-usage of the skill

Why? Do you think charisma is a dump stat or something?

...but makes it extremely unwise for our non-diplomatic PCs to interact with anyone of note!

Mostly because of your strange rules. For a person of average or better charisma, its almost impossible to accidently insult someone whose disposed to liking you badly enough for them to change thier mind. Or do you think charisma is a dump stat or something?

Haven't you noticed in the real world how important charisma usually is to a person's success?

Has anyone else noted this problem in their games?

Not really. I think that is because I tend to use the rules as written with the judicious application of circumstance modifiers. Which typically leads to an entirely different set of problems which have nothing to do with your complaints. Speaking of which, http://www.giantitp.com, has some excellent suggestions for standardizing circumstance modifiers and/or altering the diplomacy system.

 

[S'mon]

I follow the diplomacy rules very loosely because of this. I don't put a number too it. REal life relationships don't have numbers or probabilities at all. I factor in the nature of the relationship, the roll and the roleplaying of the character.

Likewise. Normally with Diplomacy I set a DC to get a desired result and the PC rolls - eg getting past the gate guard might be DC 15 or 20 depending on circumstances. Circumstances include the PC's spiel, so roleplaying comes before rollplaying. IMC the skills can support the roleplaying but not replace them for critical interactions. If the interaction is trivial maybe I abstract it to a roll.

Edit: Yes, I am of the camp that says certain players shouldn't play certain PC types. If you can't remember what spells do, don't play a Wizard; if you can't come up with a moderately plausible spiel don't play a CHA-focussed character.

 

[Chimera]

In the three cases I've mentioned, it's not an established house rule. Or at least, we were never told of this. The three GMs in question do not game with each other or even know each other. It is just a pattern I've noted in my recent gaming history.

As the rules state, the GM should determine the attitude of the NPC and then determine a Diplomacy DC to modify that attitude. Making a Diplomacy attempt should be a deliberate choice and it takes at least one minute to do. This is the way it should work.

However, these GMs have been using it more like the attitude check itself, making us roll everytime we interact and using it to determine the NPCs attitude toward us. With anything less than 10 generally being a negative result and only a high-teens or better result being positive. This means that a character without Diplomacy skill will generally recieve a negative reaction from at least half the people he meets, which is not completely reasonable.

Sorry Celebrim, but a Diplomacy check should only be made when one announces that one is attempting to use the Diplomacy skill. See RAW.

One of the GMs is only infrequent about this. It's not much of a problem in his game. One GM I'm no longer playing with. The other one is a major pain in this regard and I intend to speak to him about it.