Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Diplomacy, the replacement for roleplaying.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2348016" data-attributes="member: 20805"><p><strong>Read in full, thank you.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you for the input, but not the attitude.</p><p></p><p>However, if you read back upthread you will find that what I am saying is more like:</p><p></p><p> The system should reflect the characters skill, not the players.</p><p> The player should be able to have a consistant framework to be able to judge success/failure.</p><p> The GiantTip rules go a long way towards this.</p><p> 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. </p><p> {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}</p><p></p><p>And, since you apparently missed it in your haste to reply....</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 2348016, member: 20805"] [b]Read in full, thank you.[/b] 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.... 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 :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Diplomacy, the replacement for roleplaying.
Top