Diplomacy Skill Check Results

[Henry]

From real life experience I know it IS possible to badly insult someone even if not meaning to, though I'm not saying a roll of 1 should do it; I also think Diplomacy rolls for every situation is too much; I'm not that diplomatic when grocery shopping, or talking with a utility company, or just walking in the park and stray-meeting someone.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

That is rather odd. Are you certain that you have accurately recorded the table that all three GM's use? Again, the pattern you describe is not found in the rules that I have. Where did that pattern (1,8,12,20) come from? Does anyone know if a there is a book out there with an alternative take on diplomacy from which all three GM's - who don't know each other - could have arrived at the same unusual house rule?

The rules I have state that for an indifferent character, a roll 30 will make them helpful, a roll of 15 will make them friendly, a roll of at least 1 will result in no change, and only a roll of less than 1 will result in them becoming unfriendly. It's virtually impossible to roll less than one with normal characters. You'd have to have an 8 Charisma, and then roll a 1 on a d20. The bigger problem most people have with the diplomacy RAW is that its virtually impossible to not obtain a good result from a diplomacy check. What you may be seeing is an over compensation for this problem, but its absolutely bizarre that three DM's who don't know each other would have arrived at the same (if you don't mind me saying so ill thought out) method of handling this more usual problem.

As the rules state, the GM should determine the attitude of the NPC and then determine a Diplomacy DC to modify that attitude.

Yes.

Making a Diplomacy attempt should be a deliberate choice...

That is a rules interpretation, not a rule and in my opinion it is a rather odd interpretation. I do not find in the rules where it says that in general, skills are only invoked by player choice. Yes, a player can request a Diplomacy check, in the same say that a player can request a Sense Motive check. But in many cases, Diplomacy checks are alot like Balance checks. They are sometimes used to deliberately walk balance beams, but they are also sometimes demanded by the situation that the character finds himself in, and IMO virtually any social interaction can qualify. The main reason that I find it exceptionally odd that Diplomacy is something that never occurs unless the player demands it, is that under a strict interpretation of that rule a player could make a character with 3 CHR and never suffer any penalties for doing so. The character can be grotesquely socially inept, but as long as you've forbidden the DM from requesting a Diplomacy check of the player on the grounds that Diplomacy is always a deliberate choice, the character never takes a penalty from his charisma. In short, all the charisma's in the world could be classified into two sorts - those with bonuses to social skills and those that never come into play.

That to me is a bizarre, and I don't think its nearly as well founded in the rules as you believe.

This is the way it should work.

That is an opinion.

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.

Errr... hrrmmm... you do realize that an attitude check is just an untrained Diplomacy check right? At the very least, even if this isn't explicit, there is nothing which suggests that the DM should not let Diplomacy checks substitute for attitude checks at any time.

With anything less than 10 generally being a negative result and only a high-teens or better result being positive.

As I pointed out, this is a house rule. Unless the other party already holds a negative attitude to you, generally only results under 1 make the other party more negative toward you.

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.

Well, yes, I agree. But my point is that the RAW do not have as unreasonable of a standard. What's unreasonable is the table that you provided which suggested that all things being equal 8 or less is negative result. Where did that table come from?

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

I did. See above responce.

 

[Tigerbunny]

As one of the Bad DMs referenced, let me explain how I do it.

I'm dealing with 2 different things I dislike in the RAW. In general, the results end up pretty close to RAW with these exceptions.

(1) Incremental checks. Modified results of 6 or less can impose a negative circumstance modifier on later checks, and modified results of 14 or better can give a bonus. This is because it's SO hard to move people up (and especially DOWN) the attitude ladder. I sort of informally track this, so as to create a bit of a ladder in between steps - someone can be 1/3 of the way from Indifferent to Friendly, for example.

(2) First impressions. The first extended social interaction with a new NPC I _always_ ask for some kind of social skill - Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc depending on the context. The result of this check sets the 'first impression' of the NPC. They may be Indifferent, Friendly, or Hostile, but that first interaction offers the possibility of setting the tone for the relationship. Thus a high result will tend to give circumstance bonuses for similar interactions in the future, where a poor result will tend to give penalties.

I also DO do 'blow the top off' results - the aforementioned 36 - where I just decide that the NPC is so thoroughly convinced that they shift 2 stops instead of 1.

That's what I do.

 

[Silveras]

That is a rules interpretation, not a rule and in my opinion it is a rather odd interpretation. I do not find in the rules where it says that in general, skills are only invoked by player choice. Yes, a player can request a Diplomacy check, in the same say that a player can request a Sense Motive check. But in many cases, Diplomacy checks are alot like Balance checks. They are sometimes used to deliberately walk balance beams, but they are also sometimes demanded by the situation that the character finds himself in, and IMO virtually any social interaction can qualify. The main reason that I find it exceptionally odd that Diplomacy is something that never occurs unless the player demands it, is that under a strict interpretation of that rule a player could make a character with 3 CHR and never suffer any penalties for doing so. The character can be grotesquely socially inept, but as long as you've forbidden the DM from requesting a Diplomacy check of the player on the grounds that Diplomacy is always a deliberate choice, the character never takes a penalty from his charisma. In short, all the charisma's in the world could be classified into two sorts - those with bonuses to social skills and those that never come into play.

That to me is a bizarre, and I don't think its nearly as well founded in the rules as you believe.

-- snip --

That is an opinion.

An opinion based on a reading of the rules. I refer you to the Diplomacy skill section in the Players' Handbook (pp. 71-72), the Influencing NPC Reactions sidebar (PH p. 72), and the section on NPC Attitudes (DMG, p.128).

When a PC is dealing with NPCs, a character may try to use Diplomacy to influence this attitude as described on page 72 of the Players' Handbook. A character without ranks in Diplomacy makes a Charisma check instead.

Choose the attitude of an NPC or NPC's based on circumstances. Most people met in a neutral city are indifferent. Most guards are indifferent but suspicious, because that's what's expected of them.

Use this skill to persuade ...

Check: You can change the attitude of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check. ...
-- snip --
Action: Changing others' attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full round actions).

Note that at no point do the RAW support the "passive" use of Diplomacy to accidentally give offense. ALL references are to active, intentional use.

Perhaps you have some citation that supports your contention otherwise ?

Characters do not need to make Craft checks, unless they decide to use that skill in some way. Characters do not need to make Swim checks, unless they decide to use the Swim skill. Characters do not need to make Appraise checks, unless they decide to use the Appraise skill.

Spot and Listen are two that I would grant are passive, to a large degree, but they are unusual skills anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

Characters do not need to make Craft checks, unless they decide to use that skill in some way. Characters do not need to make Swim checks, unless they decide to use the Swim skill. Characters do not need to make Appraise checks, unless they decide to use the Appraise skill.

I pretty much agree. If you fall into the water, you are free to forgo a swim check. If you do, you automatically fail that swim check and sink. If you are riding a horse at a gallop in difficult terrain, you are free to forgo a ride check unless you wish to use that skill in some way - for example to stay on the horse. I won't make you use your ride skill, but the situation calls on a ride check and there are consequences if you don't. Likewise, if you running down an ice covered staircase, I the DM have no right to demand you make a balance skill check, but you better believe that if you choose to forgo that skill check there will be consequences. Likewise, if you are casting a spell under adverse conditions, noone is going to 'make' you make a Concentration check; but, if you choose to forgo that concentration check when the situation calls for one then well you don't get a spell. It's just that simple. Virtually every skill has this aspect. One is never required to move silently, but if one doesn't, then one isn't silent.

So if the Duchess comes up to you and says, "So, you are the hero that we have been hearing so many good things about?", you can stand there and stare the Duchess in the face without saying a word, but if you choose to do that then I assure you that you will have committed a major social faux pas. Choosing to forgo your Diplomacy check in a social situation is pretty much the same as automatically failing. In particular, I find the whole debate rather silly, because unless you are distracted, you can simply take 10 on a diplomacy check and be gauranteed not to make things worse. The socially awkward characters mutters out the briefest thing he can think of, "I-i-i d-don't know, ma'am, I mean..you Grace.", and the Duchess - if she has no particular reason to be irritated - just says something witty, smiles and moves on thinking the character to be an uncultured bore, but at least a highly useful one.

But the logic that you can get into a social situation and not have to make a charisma check of some sort unless you want to is utterly ridiculous.

I for one am getting really tired of this whole anything not expressly permitted by the rules is forbidden attitude. For crying out loud, if the DM can't request a low charisma character make a charisma check, what ever is the consequences of having a low charisma?

 

[Silveras]

So if the Duchess comes up to you and says, "So, you are the hero that we have been hearing so many good things about?", you can stand there and stare the Duchess in the face without saying a word, but if you choose to do that then I assure you that you will have committed a major social faux pas. Choosing to forgo your Diplomacy check in a social situation is pretty much the same as automatically failing. In particular, I find the whole debate rather silly, because unless you are distracted, you can simply take 10 on a diplomacy check and be gauranteed not to make things worse. The socially awkward characters mutters out the briefest thing he can think of, "I-i-i d-don't know, ma'am, I mean..you Grace.", and the Duchess - if she has no particular reason to be irritated - just says something witty, smiles and moves on thinking the character to be an uncultured bore, but at least a highly useful one.

And that's what not making a check means. That all you did was answer without trying to impress. The check is there for when you try to be impressive.

But the logic that you can get into a social situation and not have to make a charisma check of some sort unless you want to is utterly ridiculous.

You misunderstand the point. The point is that Diplomacy is NOT a reaction check (a 1st & 2nd Edition rule that was NOT carried into 3rd Edition).

Based on what the PC is doing in any given situation, of course the DM is free to call for a check of some kind. The problem is with the approach that asking a random NPC on the street "Is this the street where the parade will pass ?" requires a Bluff, Charisma, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check is that it is overkill. THAT is what I am saying is inappropriate. Going into a shop and buying a loaf of bread, or paying to get your axe sharpened, should not require a check, and should not generate either an enemy or "best buddy". On the other hand, walking into those same shops and trying to get the shopkeeper to give you a discount on the price of that bread or service; THAT is a case for use of the skill, and a check. See the difference ?

I for one am getting really tired of this whole anything not expressly permitted by the rules is forbidden attitude. For crying out loud, if the DM can't request a low charisma character make a charisma check, what ever is the consequences of having a low charisma?

I also never said that there were not circumstances where the "decision" was a moot point.

Swim: If you do not need to worry about breathing (as a Construct, for example), you can choose to forego the Swim check and walk along the bottom. If, however, you need to breathe and you therefore make the effort to Swim, NOW you make a Swim check.

Balance: If you do not wish to move on the slippery surface, you (probably) do not have to make a Balance check to remain standing.

Diplomacy: If the PC wishes to just answer the Duchess' question, without asking for a favor or trying to appear impressive, NO DIPLOMACY check is required (by the RAW). If, on the other hand, the PC wishes to improve his/her situation, perhaps by impressing the Duchess or gaining a promise of backing for the next adventure, NOW a Diplomacy check is required, because the PC is trying to DO something.

 

[Celebrim]

Based on what the PC is doing in any given situation, of course the DM is free to call for a check of some kind. The problem is with the approach that asking a random NPC on the street "Is this the street where the parade will pass ?" requires a Bluff, Charisma, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check is that it is overkill.

Actually, it requires a Gather Information check, but assuming that the information is public and not secret, the DC of the check is like 0 (in this DM's opinion), and unless the character is god awful horrifying or there is a huge social gulf between the character and the NPC he approaches there is no point in rolling.

By the way, that may be overkill, but it is the rules as written. Quote:

"Use this skill for making contacts in an area, finding out local gossip, rumormongering, and collectin general information"

See, I can rules lawyer too.

THAT is what I am saying is inappropriate. Going into a shop and buying a loaf of bread, or paying to get your axe sharpened, should not require a check...

Why not? Because its forbidden under the rules or because it would be annoying to roll all those pointless checks? I grant you that there is no point in disrupting the flow of the game to roll checks that will pretty much always succeed.

and should not generate either an enemy or "best buddy".

And under the raw its just about impossible for it to do either if the person is indifferent to your presence. You have to produce a roll under 1 to get a negative result under the rules as written, and very arguably if you walk into a shop and produce some money you've just claimed a pretty worthwhile circumstance bonus on the check because the shop keeper wants your money and has a reason to at least pretend to be nice.

On the other hand, walking into those same shops and trying to get the shopkeeper to give you a discount on the price of that bread or service; THAT is a case for use of the skill, and a check. See the difference ?

No, I don't, or at least I don't see the difference you see. One is a first impression. The other is an attempt to haggle. The first implicitly influences the shopkeeper's attitude. He sizes up the customer. He's thinking, "Is this guy a bum? Is this guy a nobleman who might be a good customer, and who might refer good business to me? Is this guy a wealthy mercenary I might can sucker into giving me more than the service is worth?" The second is an attempt to persuade the shopkeeper to give you a particular price. First impressions might make haggling harder or easier, but they are there.

I also never said that there were not circumstances where the "decision" was a moot point.

I didn't say you did. I said you were overlooking that social situations were the same sort of 'make a skill check or sink' situations as trying to swim. Maybe you are the King and you don't need to be diplomatic because thier is no (obvious) negative consequence for you if you brush a courtier off. It's not that you didn't fail the check, its that you didn't care about the consequences. This is just like being the construct that doesn't have to worry about breathing. But most of the time, you are thrown into a social situation and you must make your skill checks or else effectively you will have failed them.

Diplomacy: If the PC wishes to just answer the Duchess' question, without asking for a favor or trying to appear impressive, NO DIPLOMACY check is required (by the RAW).

I'm not sure that the RAW say much about it one way or the other, because they spend alot more time on combat situations than social situations. Certainly I don't see anywhere were it explicitly says that diplomacy checks are not needed in these social settings.

If, on the other hand, the PC wishes to improve his/her situation, perhaps by impressing the Duchess or gaining a promise of backing for the next adventure, NOW a Diplomacy check is required, because the PC is trying to DO something.

I don't think you are getting it. Let's back up and try again from a different route.

Suppose that the King orders you to sing a song. "Entertain me. Sing me a folk song of your rustic people.", he says. Now obviously, you can't be forced to make a Perform check. But, if you decide to obey the King and sing, you have to make a Perform check. The Perform check is implicit in the decision to sing. You either make the Perform check or you don't sing. You can't say that you are going to sing and not make a Perform check because you aren't trying to impress the king. Your song turned out in some fashion whether you were trying to impress the king or not. And if you choose not to sing, then clearly you better be a darn charismatic person because King's are used to having thier will obeyed.

Most social situations in which a diplomacy check are warranted are indentical to the above situation. Even though the Duchess does not make an explicit demand to the PC for the PC to entertain her, that is implicitly what such a social situation represents. The Duchess has implicitly demanded of the PC that they perform a Diplomacy check and reveal to her who they are and what quality that they might have. You don't get a choice in social situations as to whether you are trying to impress people or not. In social situations people are always judging you whether you want them to be judging you are not. So when the Duchess comes up and speaks to the PC, he doesn't get a choice to not try to impress the Duchess. The Duchess is demanding, "Impress me. Show me that you are my kind of person." And the very same is true even if we are just talking about meeting a farmer on the road carrying his wagon load of hay, or if you are approached by a babe in the bar. If you don't believe me, then I daresay you don't know many rural farmers and haven't been approached by many women in a bar.

When you are in a social situation, you don't have a choice whether or not you are going to 'do something', except in the sense that you can choose to do nothing which - like choosing not to swim - has the same result as failing the skill check.

 

[Chimera]

As one of the Bad DMs referenced, let me explain how I do it.

I didn't call you a bad DM. I think you are a good GM. I've just noted this pattern with many games I've been in and I admit to sometimes doing the same thing myself. I play in another game besides yours and have noted the same thing there. That is, the use of Diplomacy checks to determine an NPC's attitude.

I do like that you allow shifts of more than one step at once. This is reasonable. See below for an example of "unreasonable".

I also DO 'blow the top off' results - the aforementioned 36 - where I just decide that the NPC is so thoroughly convinced that they shift 2 stops instead of 1.

Actually, the 36 was with a different GM. In one instance in that person's game, a result of 5 made a guy angry with me (a shift of many degrees). The 36 shifted a Merchant so completely unreasonably that he bought magic items from us at 75% of base (50% being Cost and 100% being Market Value) and sold us new items at 60% of base. We players were rather flustered by that!

For Celebrim, this is not a table. It's an observation. Using 8 and 12 for examples of results near 10, where the result just below 10 seems to have a less than ideal result and the result just over 12 seems to yield no change.

 

[Chimera]

I want to add something here.

The over-reliance on making skill checks like Diplomacy and Intimidate makes me uncomfortable because it diminishes role-play in favor of roll-play. The game becomes less about interaction and more about mechanics. I may as well make a skills monkey and speak from a game mechanics point of view instead of a character point of view.

Why should I bother attempting to act in character if it is just going to be reduced to a die roll? If the following occurs (and it has), then I am unsatisfied;

Me: "Ok Orc, start talking or I'll turn your corpse into a Zombie"
GM: Make an Intimidate roll.

Me: "How much do you want for the scroll?"
GM: Make a Diplomacy check.

 

[S'mon]

Me: "Ok Orc, start talking or I'll turn your corpse into a Zombie"
GM: Make an Intimidate roll.

Me: "How much do you want for the scroll?"
GM: Make a Diplomacy check.

The first seems like a classic case for an Intimidate check to me - I don't see a problem there. The GM needs to use judgement setting the DC - a naked tied up orc surrounded by dead orcs will be easier to intimidate than a fully armed orc backed up by his orc buddies.

The second seems inadequate for a Dip check, which per RAW (& reasonably, I think) requires at least a minute. If I have a problem with Dip it's the notion of "combat diplomacy" as a full-round action.

As GM, in the first case I would usually ask for a Cha or Intimidate check. Even an Intimidated orc might not tell the truth though - and an honorable captive might refuse to cooperate even if thoroughly Intimidated (scared witless) if they preferred death/torture to dishonour.

In the second case I would just give the seller's initial demand for the scroll (probably x2 or x4 over market price, unless it's a commodity item in the locality). If the player wanted they could attempt Dip to lower the price. A good rule I saw on ENW was to reduce the initial cost by the result of the Dip roll, eg:

Initial asking price is 200% of standard. PC with Diplomacy +10 rolls a 15; price is reduced 25% to 175% of standard.

That makes Diplomacy reliably useful but not overpowered.