Feeling argumentative?

[taotad]

Diplomacy

How many ranks you have in diplomacy,governs how many arguments you can think of.

When involved in discussions you battle your intellect with another, inventing arguments and counter-arguments as you go along.
When you initialize an argument with another character, you roll d20 and add your total bonus in diplomacy.
The character you argue with, does the same.
If you as the initializer scores the highest, you win the first argument and lower your opponents rank in diplomacy by one, until the end of the disussion.
If the other character (not the initializer) wins the argument, he/she gains the initiative and the story repeats over again.

The first character to hit 0 ranks looses without any thoughts left on the subject.

Two professionals or academics could argue for a long time about a single subject, while two blacksmiths would easily agree to the best way of tempering steel...

I think using this system would have to be reserved to rare occasions, but I also find the system in the DMG (hostile -> friendly) more based on feelings, then intellect.

What do you folks think?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't know. As a former debater, I think debate should really be a subset of the perform skill. (You'd get synergy bonusses from knowledge (it helps to know what you're talking about but it's not necessary), bluff (skilled liars will often win), and diplomacy (it helps too)).

On the other hand, for the kind of discussion you're talking about, I think the subject being discussed and the character of the people discussing it would have more to do with how long the argument went on than how diplomatic they are. If two honest academics are discussing an empirically verifiable fact (the boiling point of water, for instance), it's probably not going to last too long. One of them will look it up or get out a thermometer, bunsen burner and water. (On the other hand, an academic who couldn't stand the thought of losing the argument would probably wax eloquent about reality being only perceptions and there being no absolute truth, etc. to disguise the fact that he had no leg to stand on).

The same is true for the blacksmiths. If they're the kind of people who can admit they're wrong or see someone else's point of view, they might agree easily. If they're not that kind of person, the argument could go on for a long time.

In both cases, the determining factor isn't how skilled the individuals are at making their points, it's the character of those individuals.

 

[twjensen]

Arguing in general

Doesn't really seem like a "diplomacy" thing.

bluff / sense motive for arguing by pulling-stuff-out-of-butt.

perform for formal debates, legal battles, etc. with synergy bonuses, circumstance modifiers, the whole bit.

profession: lawyer would have to pretty much trump the perform skill in a *modern* courtroom. So it depends on how advanced your campaign is with respect to social questions like democracy, the rule of law, and so forth.

Knowledge: whatever for situations where it isn't so much an argument as a gentleman's disagreement to be settled by facts.

 

[wolfpunk]

I think the concept is a good one. I think the system would work easily if you adapt the right skill to the right situation. Perhaps your system using diplomacy could be used when negotiating a salary or some sort of contractual agreement. Likewise a purely intellectual debate could use the appropriate knowledge skill. You could allow a synergy bonus from perform, bluff and sense motive to further augment your skill in this fashion. This would mean that a character with good bluff, sense motive and perform could sometimes run circles around someone who had the appropriate skill even. This would represent people who are mild mannered, easily flustered, or simply poor orators.

This is actually an interesting rule concept that I rather like, and will think about some more, perhaps it might find it's way into my campaign even.

 

[Al]

It depends on the forum for arguments, but I feel that the Knowledge skill should determine how well you know the arguments, whilst Diplomacy or Perform may perhaps relate to how well you present those arguments. A solid argument portrayed by an uncharismatic speaker may lack conviction, but the argument itself is unsurmountable. Bluff could be used to invent 'arguments' and statistics, whilst Sense Motive could sniff out the false from the true. Most amusingly, an opposed Bluff check could convince the audience that a real fact is in fact fabricated.
In an academic journal, you may wish to rely purely on Knowledge skills.

A PC once actually became embroiled in a court case. It was an opposed combined Profession (lawyer) and Knowledge (law) check, with synergy bonuses for Diplomacy. Bluff gave witnesses a bonuses but if Sensed by the judge to be lying gave a huge penalty. A circumstance modifier based on the evidence was also added.

He was acquitted, incidentally.

 

[taotad]

You all bring up very good points.

My initial frustration with using the normal skill-system-opposed-roll is that it moves so darn fast! If I want things to be speedy I could easily resolve an entire combat by each player rolling one dice and find out who won in the overall. But that would take away all the adrenalin and fun.
This adrenalin and fun can also be applied to non-combat situations, by making a much more sophisticated system, packing it up with synergy bonuses and enviromental modifiers. giving players something to live up to.

Dammit. The D&D system I really like, and I can see the possibility for it to apply to more then combat through the skills, but it seems like such an enormous workload to begin with!
I'd be glad if you could help me out with good ideas, and words of praise.

 

[taotad]

Intimidate

DC = targets HD + 10

This is bad.

There should be much easier to intimidate a wizard then barbarian, I think anyway. The very least thing one could to was the put the Wis mod up there to reflect something else then experience.

An idea I like (but don't like since it involves changing the system) is to use the will or fortitude save (the best one) as the target DC and let the intimidator hammer at the target with insults and degration. For each successful check the target looses one point in will/fortitude save, until falling to zero where he looses his own willpower/posture temporarily, and falls to the intimidators will.
This would make the process for imtimidating longer, (each check = 1 round) and making it more difficult to throw down the powerful people, while easily taking the smaller guys/dolls down with little time.

This could also be applied to the primary system with HD I guess, making the target symbolically loose one HD until reaching zero.

 

[wolfpunk]

I think I would do it something like this...

Debates, negotiations, and haggling

When a character begins a verbal encounter with a NPC the situation is resolved in the following fashion.
First, the DM decides which skill is the primary factor in the verbal encounter. This could be any skill such as Appraise, Diplomacy, or Knowledge.
Second, the DM and player then roll 1d20 and add their appropriate number of ranks to the result. The DM and player then add synergy bonuses from perform, bluff, and sense motive if applicable. Having at least two ranks in one of these skills allows you to add a +2 bonus to your dice roll, if you have two or more ranks in more then one of those skills you gain a +2 for each of them. The DM may rule that you may apply your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier if applicable.
Third, after adding all modifiers to the dice roll compare the results. Whoever has the higher roll has made the first “hit” in the verbal encounter. The difference of the rolls is subtracted from the ranks of the losing opponent. So if the player ends up with a total score of 27, and the npc has a total score of 22, then the npc would lose 5 ranks in the appropriate skill. Treat this as a temporary loss of skill ranks that applies only while invovled in the current verbal encounter.
Whoever loses all their ranks in the appropriate skill first loses the verbal encounter.

I don't know if that is more simple or complex, more efficient or less efficient but it has a good start I think.

 

[Victim]

Intimidate

DC = targets HD + 10

This is bad.

There should be much easier to intimidate a wizard then barbarian, I think anyway. The very least thing one could to was the put the Wis mod up there to reflect something else then experience.

An idea I like (but don't like since it involves changing the system) is to use the will or fortitude save (the best one) as the target DC and let the intimidator hammer at the target with insults and degration. For each successful check the target looses one point in will/fortitude save, until falling to zero where he looses his own willpower/posture temporarily, and falls to the intimidators will.
This would make the process for imtimidating longer, (each check = 1 round) and making it more difficult to throw down the powerful people, while easily taking the smaller guys/dolls down with little time.

This could also be applied to the primary system with HD I guess, making the target symbolically loose one HD until reaching zero.

Why would a wizard be easier to intimidate than a barbarian?

Also, basing the check off fort or will saves scres rogues, who get intimidate as a class skill, unlike, say, druids who have both fort and will.

 

[Crothian]

Why would a wizard be easier to intimidate than a barbarian?

Also, basing the check off fort or will saves scres rogues, who get intimidate as a class skill, unlike, say, druids who have both fort and will.

Well, being able to intimidate and being intimidated are two different things. I think it's more of a will save, personally since it's more mental dealing with how the person intimidated you is being precieved.