negative effects for a bad diplomacy check?

[demon_jr]

i was wondering, how you guys handle bad diplomacy checks, such as if if you roll a natural 1.

in the game i play in, a low diplomacy roll sometimes results in the opposite of the desired result, or worse yet, the NPC involved nearly attacking.

this being the case, i am sometimes hesitant to use diplomacy, even though i have a fairly decent rank, 13 modified. in my opinion, even though my character has a fairly decent rank, the chance of making an enemy out of an NPC is sometimes not worth the use of the skill.

in our game, diplomacy is not used (in my opinion) as much as it should be (the same goes for bluff and intimidate). most encounters are done strictly through role-play, which i have no personal problem with, although it would be nice for the DM to enforce stricter rules regarding diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate. (but that is once again, just my opinion).

as a result, i find myself just roleplaying an encounter, without even resorting to a diplomacy check, since most of the times i can roleplay better than what i would actually roll, even though i have a decent modified rank in diplomacy. many times i have roleplayed an encounter which was headed in the direction i wanted, and then made a diplomacy check, only to roll a 1 and have it all fall apart in front me.

sometimes, i feel that my skill points could have been put elsewhere.

however, there have times as well, that having a high diplomacy has aided myself and my adventuring party.

in my opinion, it seems to be a bit skewed when a player rolls bad on a diplomacy check, no matter how many ranks they have, when they could theoritically roleplay a situation and obtain the desired result without having to rely on the roll of the dice.

on another note, i believe we use the variant rule of 1 equals a -10 on a skill check, but many times we forget to enforce that rule. as a result, we fall back on the 2nd edition belief that 1 results in a critical failure.

 

[Gizzard]

There's a table on p149 of the DMG which spells out how a "Charisma check" can change the attitude of NPCs. Basically, there are 5 classes of NPC attitude; from Hostile to Helpful. Rolling well moves you up the attitude scale, rolling poorly moves you down. I'm not exactly clear on how this relates to a Diplomacy check, other than +13 would be a pretty big advantage.

Heres something I did for opposed checks:

For a lot of skills (like Climbing or Balance) you are considered to be OK as long as you dont miss by more than 5. I've ad-hoc used variations of this sort of thing for BLuff v. Sense Motive to determine when a PCs flagrant lying has gotten them into trouble. It worked relatively well, but I didnt adjust the NPCs attitude by a lot each time. Basically, it went like this:

1) "the NPC looks at you as if he is weighing your words."
2) "now, the NPC looks puzzled and begins to ask you a question."
3) "the NPC furrows his brow and writes 'unreliable source' next to the story you told him"
4) "the NPC says that he has duties to attend to and really must end the interview."

Some of those were failed by -10 or more, but I think the key is to look at it as a long term negotiation. One failure wont kill the negotiation, but a string of them will.

 

[Stalker0]

If your dm is utilizing the table strictly, with a +13 diplomacy checks your odds are MUCH greater to help than to harm. Its very hard to go back down the scale, but fairly easy to climb it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If your DM uses the rules, it will almost never happen that Diplomacy will have a bad effect for any PC with a Dip skill greater than +5.

According to the rules, rolling a natural '1' with a skill does not automatically result in a bad effect, just like I can't punch through a mitral wall if a roll a natural '20'. Having a 'critical failure' on a natural '1' is a fine house rule for very special circumstances, but it is a lousy rule for general use. There are reasons the official skill system does not include it.

If your DM roughly follows the book rules, Diplomacy is one of the better skills in the core rules once you push it to +15 or so. It is a huge boon to the otherwise anemic Paladin class.

 

[aliensex]

I generally like to treat Diplomacy like the old Etiquette proficiency. Just using it when characters are in prolonged social interactions that would be tedious to play out.

Definately a 1 is not critical failure, and should not be treated as such.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Others have answered the rules part, I jsut want to make a point on the role-play so no skill needed part of your post.

I hate those kind of rules. What I try to enforce as a DM is you roll first. Now that you see your result, roleplay the result to the best of your ability. If you roll a one with atotal result of -2, roll play a crappy diplomacy result, be insulting, rude, shy, whatever you want to represent a bad result. You get a total of 20 be as concivncing as you can be.

 

[demon_jr]

Others have answered the rules part, I jsut want to make a point on the role-play so no skill needed part of your post.

I hate those kind of rules. What I try to enforce as a DM is you roll first. Now that you see your result, roleplay the result to the best of your ability. If you roll a one with atotal result of -2, roll play a crappy diplomacy result, be insulting, rude, shy, whatever you want to represent a bad result. You get a total of 20 be as concivncing as you can be.

i wouldn't mind playing that way either

but i'm not the DM, and the group i play with has already established the type of game they like to play. they like to emphasize story over rules, all though there have been many discussion on rules, ironically enough.

i think it is a hold over from when we played 2nd edition. there really wasn't much use for charisma or the reaction tables, at least from what i saw from the DM.

the problem that arises when role-playing takes over rolls,in our group, is that it tends to penalize those within the group that can't act well or good. plus, i think the other players in the group would resent having to make a roll to determine how well their character got along with others. they would rather "role-play" than rely on a "roll".

but, that is just my group's own opinion and house rule. the only thing i don't like is how sometimes i get the feeling that they think their way is the best and only way to go however...

me, i'm happy with whatever just as long everyone has fun and my ideas are heard and considered

 

[Shard O'Glase]

i wouldn't mind playing that way either

but i'm not the DM, and the group i play with has already established the type of game they like to play. they like to emphasize story over rules, all though there have been many discussion on rules, ironically enough.

i think it is a hold over from when we played 2nd edition. there really wasn't much use for charisma or the reaction tables, at least from what i saw from the DM.

the problem that arises when role-playing takes over rolls,in our group, is that it tends to penalize those within the group that can't act well or good. plus, i think the other players in the group would resent having to make a roll to determine how well their character got along with others. they would rather "role-play" than rely on a "roll".

but, that is just my group's own opinion and house rule. the only thing i don't like is how sometimes i get the feeling that they think their way is the best and only way to go however...

me, i'm happy with whatever just as long everyone has fun and my ideas are heard and considered

I see the problem on the other end, I see it penalizing those who spent their hard earned skill points in CHR based skills. Sucks to be a bard with a 24 chr, and tons of chr skills if the dwarf fighter with 8chr can just roll play his way through an encounter as well or better than you can with your class abilities.

Sure what matters most is that everyone is having fun, so if you all are having a blast the system works for you guys. Me I'd never play a chr skill based character in those games since my skills and class abilities gained me virtually nothing.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I see the problem on the other end, I see it penalizing those who spent their hard earned skill points in CHR based skills. Sucks to be a bard with a 24 chr, and tons of chr skills if the dwarf fighter with 8chr can just roll play his way through an encounter as well or better than you can with your class abilities.

I know that. My ninja has diplomacy +15, which should be enough to befriend almost everyone who isn't openly hostile. And even with them I should have a fair chance. But that dwarf without diplomacy and average cha can barter better than him.

Many people use the "it has to be role-played" excuse to dump CHA as a ability score to put their worst roll into and don't use that at all. In fact, that's even bad roleplaying: You don't play yourself, you play a character. A character that has other strength's and weaknesses. A weakling can play a strong barbarian. A clumsy guy can play the agile rogue. Why can't the shy guy play a master diplomat??? Why won't the characters CHA be taken into account when everything else will? After all, I won't punch the DM into face to determine the success of my unarmed attack. I won't have to lift 20 bricks from the floor to determine the success of my strength check. So why will I have to convince the DM with my diplomatic skills to have my character succeed in a diplomacy check?

After all, player knowledge is banned, so smart players can't use knowledge their characters don't have. Why don't ban player charisma, so charming players can't use their charms unless their character has decent CHA?
I mean, D&D is often depicted as a game for geeks (guy who know much but have weak social skills) and if any, player's knowledge should be allowed but player's charisma disregarded

 

[Stalker0]

My problem with diplomacy is that I think it should be more of a sliding scale. I mean, if your initial unfriendly towards me, it wouldn't take much to get you to be flat out hostile, but if you were friendly, you would let a lot slide before being indifferent towards me.

I think it should be a higher roll than simply a 5 to make someone indifferent hostile, maybe more like a 10 or so.