Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5463783" data-attributes="member: 4937">Saying that diplomacy only works when you the DM thinks it is reasonable for it to work is the same as saying, "Your ranks in dipomacy don't matter."  At best, you are treating diplomacy like searching for traps - there are certain preplaced encounters where you can use the skill to bypass the hazard.  But chances are it means you've decided that, "This hazard, indeed this whole story line, can only be overcome by combat." The problem with the rules as written is that they don't treat bargining with a group of goblin bandits you've happened upon as being any different than bargaining with your personal sworn enemy or with an offended deity - all are simply 'hostile'.   But the position you've adopted, which is basically, "NPC's don't change their attitude except when it is in their logical interests to do so.", is in essence not only treating all these situations the same as well but also effectively means that ranks in a diplomacy skill mean little since what matters isn't how persuasive someone is, but whether something is rational self-interest.  If that is the case though, all three groups modify their attitude (or don't) entirely without consideration of PC input but rather based on consideration of self-interest, and what really matters as far as 'diplomacy' goes is whether the player can come up with an idea you consider reasonable.   Now, I'm not saying that that is entirely bad.  The reasonableness of suggested course of action ought to be a quantifiable factor in diplomacy just as it is with say the bluff skill, but as written, it's just not.</blockquote>

Verification