Diplomacy, the replacement for roleplaying.

[kigmatzomat]

I'm not sure I like how you let so many people use Aid Another on the diplomacy check. Does that mean if I get together 200 random peasants, and 100 of them make the check to aid me, I get +200 to Diplomacy?

I don't think the 200 peasants would be useful. Instead think of a diplomat having a team of researchers & experts who provide information relevent to the discussion. Of course, to me this would mean they made the Diplomacy:10 check and had a relevant knowledge/profession skill at 5+ ranks.

Paladin: "I want to borrow a division of the army to travel through Unsafe Wood next month."
Diplomat: (turns to aid who hands him a paper) "Hmmm, according to our information that may antagonize Babba Yaga and Koschi. Perhaps we can let you have a boat to North Dangerland. It's near Unsafe Wood."
P: "We need the army to make a statement to the denizens of the Wood."
D (reading another paper) "The last report we had was that the denizens found the army 'tasty, but needing ketchup.' What statement did you plan on making? 'Dinner is on us'?"
P: "A division would out number and intimidate them."
D (yet another report): "I understand that the trolls of the Wood amount to a division on their own. You'd need an entire legion."
P: "A legion would be good."
D (new report): "Relocating a legion would require at least six weeks."
P: "I need to be there in 4 weeks!"
D: "We've got this ship that can take you to North Dangerland...."

 

[Rystil Arden]

I agree that a team of experts might help, but in my opinion, having a giant council of lords would not entitle the head lord to +2 to Diplomacy per extra lord

 

[Scion]

The game does tend to break down when large numbers of anything start coming into play.

Isnt that why, in real life, we form commitees to look at problems? Small strike force who's job it is to get all of the relevant info, give it an appropriate amount of weighting, and give a qualified answer to whoever was asking.

It tends to not work very well in real life, but this is d&d, it could work here!

 

[Rystil Arden]

The game does tend to break down when large numbers of anything start coming into play.

Isnt that why, in real life, we form commitees to look at problems? Small strike force who's job it is to get all of the relevant info, give it an appropriate amount of weighting, and give a qualified answer to whoever was asking.

It tends to not work very well in real life, but this is d&d, it could work here!

Committees lead to groupthink anyways. Fortunately, the game comes built in with a GM and the sentence I pointed out that warns you not to just throw out +2 aid another bonuses for every person.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Aid Others...

The pertinent limiting factor on Aid Other when it comes to Diplomancy is this line

In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results

The Aiding character must be in a situation where they could attempt the check themselves.
With Diplomancy that means being able to be heard and understood. 200 peasants outside the council chambers chanting "Free us from terror... clear out the Unsafe Woods" will lend *some* weight to the Palidons request.
{and, as an aside, if the player succeeds in gathering 200 peasants to protest in his favor, I think a bennie is in order }
In a typical council setting, a limit of 10 Aiders would be reasonable, but this could vary based on the political structure. Perhaps in a communal setting the entire community would vote, over a period of days, with each persons voice being heard. Weeks or months of swaying the populace before the vote would be in order to acheive your desired goals.
Mechanically this last would be a matter of each side gaining Aid other checks based on thier campaign success which is applied to the final skill check.

I would suggest that one of my favorite HR's get play in this, if the Aid other check is no better than 5, then the Aided side takes a 2 point penalty. Sometimes help isn't all that good


BTW, the Penumbra book is "Dynasties and Demagogues"

JMHO

 

[IamTheTest]

I dont know if this is applicable to the discussion so take it with a grain of salt. In the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook the Diplomacy table has another tier added: Fanatic. A Fanatic will give his life for you, no questions asked. Granted, the DC to make a Hostile creature a Fanatic is 150 (DC 50 to go from Helpful to Fanatic) but I am sure that a properly min/maxed character could get there from Indifferent or Friendly. As for the arguement for deaf assassins or interrupting guards, there is always telepathy. Just a thought.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Currenlty the RAW sets diplomancy at the exacting verbage of 'in some circumstances, it may take longer'.

Defining how much longer it takes along with penalties for misjudging the correct amount of time is, IMHO, a very good idea.

The player could indeed learn how long it would be appropriate to attempt but adding this rule and then telling the player "Oh, your best chance is if you take 14 minutes talking to the guy before you roll" completely negates the reason for the rule in the first place.

Reeeeeaal smart when the entire POINT of the diplomacy skill is so that social interaction doesn't purely rely on the skill of the player, rather on the skill of the character.

You've just said "Basically the DM adds a random number. If the player guesses the random number, he wins! Otherwise he loses."

I really think that the idea of thinking "hey - what would my best friend do for me" is going to go a long, long way towards working out how the skill is going to function.

Bandits are not going to hand over their loot and surrender themselves. They'll probably offer to let you join their merry crew. If you intend to go back to the authorities and tell them about the bandits, the bandits will STILL LOCK YOU UP. They'll be loathe to just kill you on the spot. Maybe. That doesn't mean they certainly won't do it...

Mercenaries won't give up their post just like that. They might take a better offer depending on their alignment. They might stretch the bounds of their contract. They won't just roll over and surrender unless you really do have a superior force.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I dont know if this is applicable to the discussion so take it with a grain of salt. In the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook the Diplomacy table has another tier added: Fanatic. A Fanatic will give his life for you, no questions asked. Granted, the DC to make a Hostile creature a Fanatic is 150 (DC 50 to go from Helpful to Fanatic) but I am sure that a properly min/maxed character could get there from Indifferent or Friendly.

I think that's just another part of the "What on earth were the inventors of the epic handbook thinking? Especially the guy who went through the skills!"

I mean really - apparently it's a dc of 40 to walk a tightrope, almost every illusion spell in the game is a wash beyond level 30, you can use escape artist to pass through a solid wall of nothing and yet intimidate STILL CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE RUN AWAY...

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Read in full, thank you.

Reeeeeaal smart when the entire POINT of the diplomacy skill is so that social interaction doesn't purely rely on the skill of the player, rather on the skill of the character.

You've just said "Basically the DM adds a random number. If the player guesses the random number, he wins! Otherwise he loses."

Thank you for the input, but not the attitude.

However, if you read back upthread you will find that what I am saying is more like:

The system should reflect the characters skill, not the players.
The player should be able to have a consistant framework to be able to judge success/failure.
The GiantTip rules go a long way towards this.
A possible addition to those rules are to define the element of 'how long should this take', with an array of sample for the player to work from. As each instance of Diplomancy varies from character to character, this element should have a degree of randomness and should impact the success and/or failure of a skill check. Without the degree of randomness, this element needlessly complicates the game. With the element added, the character should gain either boon or bane from getting it right.
{If one uses a Sense Motive check to guage this element, then the min/maxed characters must siphon off points to support this. Normal Diplomat builds build up Sense Motive anyway. This weakens the extreme end of the spectrum, adds a bit of interesting difference into the system, and provides more roleplaying meat for the game. YMMV}

And, since you apparently missed it in your haste to reply....

And a second of Grogtar's opinion of the word 'Helpful'

The OP is/was concerned with providing his player with more detail on the inner workings of the Diplomancy check than is available in the RAW/SRD and to ensure a relative level of standardization from one check to the next. That way the player can have a good idea of what his *characters* skills are capable of instead of expecting a Diplomancy check to end up like trying to use a Wish spell.

Anyway.. YMMV, JMHO, and all the other typical acronyms to declare that my posting here is simply an expression of my opinion, and is probably not the best answer ... but it is my answer

 

[HeavyG]

At level 3, she can't afford it

Surely, with a Diplomacy score like that, she could.