How does Rich Burlew's Diplomacy system handle threats?

[Noumenon]

I really like the whole "let's make a deal" approach to Diplomacy created by Rich Burlew. But so far instead of offering to kill my NPCs' enemies, give them gold, or allow free trade, my players are just offering one thing: "We'll let you live!"

On the one hand, anything seems like a good deal when your life is at stake. And having nukes really does improve a negotiating position in real life. But it doesn't seem that PCs should get an automatic +10 to Diplomacy whenever they're willing to use lethal force.

So how should the enemy respond to this "offer" either a) before the combat, when both sides are fresh, or b) after the combat, when the PCs are interrogating the lone, bloodied survivor? Do the PCs deserve their +10?

 

[On Puget Sound]

It depends on whether the survivor has any reason to believe them. The culture and expectations of the campaign as well as the PCs' individual reputations will have a lot to do with this.

For some survivors, death may be a better choice than betraying their tribe/ people/ god, but this should be rare, at least for humans.

A drow captive would assume the PCs are lying, having never met anyone who wasn't. A noble in a society where high-ranking captives are routinely ransomed would expect to be treated according to his station while negotiations proceed.

 

[Janx]

I think you're using the wrong skill.

"we'll let you live" is a threat, not a deal.

intimidate is a better skill to use by its name alone.

 

[Mark CMG]

I really like the whole "let's make a deal" approach to Diplomacy created by Rich Burlew. But so far instead of offering to kill my NPCs' enemies, give them gold, or allow free trade, my players are just offering one thing: "We'll let you live!"

On the one hand, anything seems like a good deal when your life is at stake. And having nukes really does improve a negotiating position in real life. But it doesn't seem that PCs should get an automatic +10 to Diplomacy whenever they're willing to use lethal force.

So how should the enemy respond to this "offer" either a) before the combat, when both sides are fresh, or b) after the combat, when the PCs are interrogating the lone, bloodied survivor? Do the PCs deserve their +10?

That should come with an equal chance of immediate provocation of hostilities and combat. Besides, the +10 Nemesis bonus isn't really applied like you are doing, if that's where you are getting the +10. Did I miss something?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I really like the whole "let's make a deal" approach to Diplomacy created by Rich Burlew. But so far instead of offering to kill my NPCs' enemies, give them gold, or allow free trade, my players are just offering one thing: "We'll let you live!"

On the one hand, anything seems like a good deal when your life is at stake. And having nukes really does improve a negotiating position in real life. But it doesn't seem that PCs should get an automatic +10 to Diplomacy whenever they're willing to use lethal force.

So how should the enemy respond to this "offer" either a) before the combat, when both sides are fresh, or b) after the combat, when the PCs are interrogating the lone, bloodied survivor? Do the PCs deserve their +10?

Relationship and Risk vs Reward.

If you're a party of elves, and you're threatening orcs, you should take a -10 Relationship penalty, because frankly they hate each other; the orcs would expect the worst, and want to kill elves anyway.

Risk vs Reward would reflect the perceived threat the PCs pose to the enemy. A single bloodied enemy is more likely to surrender, because they can be easily killed. (However, if the NPC thinks they'll be tortured, they might go down fighting, because the "reward" of life isn't worth much when measured against torture.)

Edit: Based on other responses, I'd say use the Intimidate skill with the GitP system modifiers. (You don't want PCs constantly intimidating fully armed and healthy groups.)

 

[S'mon]

Intimidate.

 

[Noumenon]

A drow captive would assume the PCs are lying, having never met anyone who wasn't. A noble in a society where high-ranking captives are routinely ransomed would expect to be treated according to his station while negotiations proceed.

I like the idea of threats and mistrust cutting off the negotiation.

That should come with an equal chance of immediate provocation of hostilities and combat. Besides, the +10 Nemesis bonus isn't really applied like you are doing, if that's where you are getting the +10. Did I miss something?

I was applying the +10 "fantastic deal" bonus, as you get to walk away with no fight and keep your head. (Though consequences from your boss would make it lower than +10.)

Relationship and Risk vs Reward.
Edit: Based on other responses, I'd say use the Intimidate skill with the GitP system modifiers. (You don't want PCs constantly intimidating fully armed and healthy groups.)

OK, Intimidate sounds good, but shouldn't the modifiers change somehow so that the two skills aren't completely interchangeable?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was applying the +10 "fantastic deal" bonus, as you get to walk away with no fight and keep your head. (Though consequences from your boss would make it lower than +10.)

That's way too good a bonus for the PCs. If the NPCs win, they carry out their mission, don't get punished for wussing out, and get the PCs' gear too. Depending on their mission, they might even be expected to capture the PCs and get info out of them. (The fact that capturing is nearly impossible in D&D rules is another issue entirely; it's the perception that matters.)

Using that rule, a peasant armed with a wood-cutter's axe could intimidate a dozen bandits into backing off, because he might kill one of them when they attack. (Even though they've got arrows.)

OK, Intimidate sounds good, but shouldn't the modifiers change somehow so that the two skills aren't completely interchangeable?

The out-of-the-book Intimidate rules are pretty bad actually, especially the in-combat use. Trading a standard action to inflict "shaken" on an enemy for 1 round is lame. On the other hand, potentially forcing an entire unit of enemies to surrender based on a lucky roll is lame in the other direction.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I have always seen intimidate, bluff, and diplomacy to be different tactics in the 'lets make a deal' event. Ideally the mechanics should be similar {if not exactly the same} but how it plays out and the aftereffects change.

For instance, I had a game where a group was trying to talk their way out of a nasty siege scenario and had gotten in to the opposing camp under a flag of parley. The enemy culture was modeled after the mongol horde style of leadership and the setting reflected that. Barbaric shows of strength and power came before the actual talking. The bard was doing really well when one of the other players had his female buccaneer use intimidate to threaten the enemy general... and he rolled a critical success.

He later left the game because he didn't get why the general responded by kicking them out of the camp and declaring that any of them seen alive after nightfall would be killed on sight. They did get what they wanted out of the deal {the army left the village alone} but not in the way expected {the army chased the PCs for a couple days....}

 

[Mark CMG]

I was applying the +10 "fantastic deal" bonus, as you get to walk away with no fight and keep your head. (Though consequences from your boss would make it lower than +10.)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Seems like fantastic deal is based on positive incentives whereas threatening a life is negative reinforcement. Still, I see how this could be used with Intimidate and alternative meanings plugged in. You'd have to keep track of the residual resentmant, though, and make sure there's a price to pay down the road.