Problems with the Diplomacy skill (plus a total halt to a campaign)

[MDK]

Regarding the OP, I see 2 problems: First there's not granting a diplomacy check because what the PLAYERS did took less than a whole minute.
That's like saying that because I can describe my character climbing the 100' cliff in less than 10 seconds, he actually gets up there that fast.
(quite apart from the fact that whoever put that 1-minute rule in there never had to put together a 1-minute speech. Go try it: 1 minute is a LOT of time!)
Now I agree that the players seem to have given up rather quickly, but for me, that would have been reason to prompt them a bit: instead of having the NPC just say NO!, I'd have him say something like NO! Whatever for?! thus handing the ball back to the players. In character, I may not be willing to let armed strangers into my house, but I WOULD want to know why they're asking.

The second issue I see is that while you claim to not wanting to railroad them, that is in fact exactly what you do. They have to do exactly what you expect them to do, or else the adventure fails, and you take issue with it when that happens (as proven by your coming here rather than just discarding the plot and moving on to the next one). If the players don't want to enter the dungeon, then maybe it's time for something else.

Now obviously, as the DM, you put in some hard work to create a scenario, and so you do WANT the players to play the scenario. However, that means you need to make it easy on them to do so. Since getting permission to search the house is required for the scenario to succeed, there should never BE a diplomacy check for them to fail. That's like wanting them to enter a dungeon but at the same time putting a lock on the door they need to pick before they can do so.
If you WANT the obvious way to have the possibility of failure (diplo check, pick lock check), that means you need to prepare alternative entrances, whether as blatantly as the collapsing street, or as subtle as having the wife pass by with a bored look on her face. Never rely on the players to come up with alternatives, as they may not (as you have found). YOU are the DM, and if any action at all is cruicial to the campaign, you need to either make it an auto-succeed, or have multiple alternatives ready for the players to try. There's no need to make it APPEAR easy to the players, but that's the difference between DM knowledge and Player knowledge.

 

[Sunseeker]

A dichotomy which is easily remedied by not an ingame solution, but an on-table solution. You know your players and their intent and if someone described his actions in a manner that is not as shiny as his character would, you help him out by filling in the gaps. Player enjoys it much more, and the end resulting is the same.

I firmly believe in not Roll playing or Roleplaying, but an almost indivisible hybrid of the two.

I call it RollePlaying. And I am going to trademark it!

So, of Bob can't RP....do it for him? I think I like letting the dumb guy say smart things rather than "filling in the gaps" for a player.

I just don't want to see it turn into "well if you want to use your IRL smarts in game, you have to play a high mental stats class.". Players should be rewarded for skill and cleverness, even if its not theater-level RP.

 

[Greenfield]

My take is that I'll give props for the effort. I won't let an overly glib or eloquent player replace his character's skill (or lack therof) with roleplaying, but I'll give a circumstance modifier of up to +2 for a well thought out pitch. That isn't going to turn stuttering Stan the 6Cha peasant with no skill points into a great orator.

Similarly, if someone comes up with a pitch that just plain falls flat, I'll give a penalty of up to -2 for the same reasons. That isn't goint to turn Fredrick Douglas into a blathering fumble-tongue either. But I want to reward good roleplaying, and +/-2 is comparable to the bonuses and penalties we apply for other well planned and executed moves in game.

 

[MarkB]

Sure, it's the issue of Player/PC dichotomy. Lets say Bill plays your "face", your bard or your sorcerer with high cha. Bill plays that class because he enjoys the class, not because he's particularly good at talking, heck, PC Bill might only have a high cha because he's got a pretty face and likes to sleep with all the barmaids. Randy on the other hand plays the fighter. Randy is a smart guy, but enjoys playing simpler classes.

Should Bill be the only player allowed to participate in important dialog? Even if Bill is utterly horrid at it simply because PC Bill is "good" at it?

If I was Bill and had tailored a character to be good at talking, I know I'd be annoyed if Randy was consistently able to achieve as good or better results simply because he was better at phrasing his dialogue in ways the DM found impressive.

If a player isn't willing to participate at all in social scenes that's one thing, but if someone who's trying to play a social character is getting shot down simply because they're not personally as persuasive a talker, then they're basically having an aspect of the game closed off from them on the grounds of real-world ability.

That's not something that's done with any other aspect of the game - you don't need to be smart to play a wizard, or strong to play a fighter, or devout to play a cleric. So why do you need to be charismatic to play a diplomat?

 

[pemerton]

you don't need to be smart to play a wizard, or strong to play a fighter, or devout to play a cleric. So why do you need to be charismatic to play a diplomat?

Interestingly, on the current "Tier 1 casters thread", at least one poster is arguing that you need to be smart to play a wizard, and that this is a feature rather than a bug.

 

[pemerton]

I see the problem as one of improper dependency.

You have tied the entirety of the campaign on the players following this very "scripted" methodology to find this particular entrance. You say that you are trying to avoid railroading, and somehow you want to preserve verisimilitude, but the entirety of this seems heavily on rails.

<snip>

Which one is more important the continuation of the campaign, or the sense of verisimilitude?

Have you considered the possibility that the players are not interested in whatever hook is out there for this adventure, and would rather do something else? I would check with the players to see if they are simply not interested in this particular adventure.

A good couple of posts.

The considerations you point to lay behind the rather direct approach that I suggested in the post immediately after the OP: have the PCs literally drop through a (suddenly opening) hole in the ground and land in the cellar with the secret entrance. This way you (i) preserve verisimilitude (discovery of the dungeon is just a random event) and (ii) give the players a really clear chance to signal a lack of interest, by having their PCs climb out of the hole and continue on their way. And there is no need to have any overt metagame discussion at all! (Which, for whatever reason, the OP appears to be averse to.)

 

[Jon_Dahl]

The great news is that my players managed to play the whole scenario through with a gold-medal-winning performance. I didn't give them any additional clues: no bored wife or a collapsing street was necessary. They simple handled it purely by their wits and guts.

I've been thinking about this real-life conversation skills vs. in-game diplomacy skills issue and this is what I came up with:
In basically all of the aspects of the game, it's always vital to know thy stuff.
If you cast a spell, it's important you know the spell and apply it correctly. If you think that casting an inflict serious wounds is going to kill a vampire, I will let you do it. Obviously you didn't know how it works. If you have a conversation with an NPC and you give me a clear indication that the conversation takes less than 1 minute, then there will be no diplomacy roll (rushed one might apply). You have to know that the diplomacy check requires one minute conversation.

Of course new players are a different breed. With them, I'm the most helpful guy you can imagine. But with these players I have played for 3.5 years. I refuse to believe that they don't know the rules by now. I want them to apply the game mechanics in the right way. If you cast a fireball in a small room or if you have 3-second conversations with NPCs or if try to climb a perfectly smooth wall, it's going to do you no good, but I appreciate that the players succeed and fail or their own. I'm not going autopilot for them.

 

[N'raac]

Actually I do! (In answer to A.)

But mind you, I don't give out extra bonuses to a player's success, but to the party's success. And thusly, I look at the group's collaborative inventiveness rather than one player's glib tongue, so to speak.

Example: Group got arrested a few sessions back for breaking and entering a basement. Upon the arrest. the bard (and guildleader to be of his own guild) was debating legal city boundaries with the inspector on whether he was excempt from certain persecution. The arresting officer was actually a fan of the Party of PC's which the bard knew and was also working that angle. Then the cleric steps in too and states that she will put her reputation as a decent citizen and follower of Thor on the line to show we had no criminal intent. That act got the bard an extra 4 points for his diplo roll to have the officer look the other way in this.

That, to me, is an example of an in-game bonus. The Cleric is using his own personal reputation to aid the bard's efforts (my, that sure sounds like an Aid Another action, doesn't it?). Neither the cleric's player nor the bard's is trying to leverage their personal abilities to enhance their characters' abilities.

A dichotomy which is easily remedied by not an ingame solution, but an on-table solution. You know your players and their intent and if someone described his actions in a manner that is not as shiny as his character would, you help him out by filling in the gaps. Player enjoys it much more, and the end resulting is the same.

This cuts both ways. The Bard with a +15 Diplomacy roll played by a stuttering wallflower is still suave and persuasive (just like the guy who has trouble lifting his PHB and dice at the same time can still play a 22 STR 1/2 Orc Fighter), and Percy the 6 CHA Peon with no social skills whatsoever does not become charming and well spoken because his player is.

So, of Bob can't RP....do it for him? I think I like letting the dumb guy say smart things rather than "filling in the gaps" for a player.

Then let the 98 pound character hit harder because his player is a weightlifter martial artist. Or simply remove social skills entirely. If social interaction will be resolved by "role playing" (player skill) alone, then remove all the "roll playing" aspects. No diplomacy rolls, no diplomacy skills - they will not be used to resolve such challenges, so shine the spotlight firmly on player, rather than character, ability. Don't let the wallflower invest a dozen skill points into Diplomacy, then have the 6 CHA fighter with no ranks succeed in persuading the NPC's because his player is a good talker. Tell them up front that the player's skills will determine success in social interaction.

I just don't want to see it turn into "well if you want to use your IRL smarts in game, you have to play a high mental stats class.". Players should be rewarded for skill and cleverness, even if its not theater-level RP.

Yet if a player has a Black Belt in three different martial arts, he still has to play a Monk if he wants to use his IRL unarmed combat skills. Why are a player's mental abilities essential to imprint on their characters, but their other skills are unacceptable to similarly imprint?

If I was Bill and had tailored a character to be good at talking, I know I'd be annoyed if Randy was consistently able to achieve as good or better results simply because he was better at phrasing his dialogue in ways the DM found impressive.

Exactly - Randy and Bill each have limited resources to devote to their characters' abilities. If Randy can effectively achieve extra abilities due to his player abilities, we have removed that "balance" we like to harp on so frequently. If Randy is president of the debate club, and Bill is a medal-winning fencer, why does Randy's character get bonuses to diplomacy, but Bill doesn't get bonuses to swordplay?

Just because most groups have a good talker or three, but few have skilled fencers, gymnasts or archers?

If a player isn't willing to participate at all in social scenes that's one thing, but if someone who's trying to play a social character is getting shot down simply because they're not personally as persuasive a talker, then they're basically having an aspect of the game closed off from them on the grounds of real-world ability.

That's not something that's done with any other aspect of the game - you don't need to be smart to play a wizard, or strong to play a fighter, or devout to play a cleric. So why do you need to be charismatic to play a diplomat?

...I can't add anything...

 

[Ryujin]

If I was Bill and had tailored a character to be good at talking, I know I'd be annoyed if Randy was consistently able to achieve as good or better results simply because he was better at phrasing his dialogue in ways the DM found impressive.

If a player isn't willing to participate at all in social scenes that's one thing, but if someone who's trying to play a social character is getting shot down simply because they're not personally as persuasive a talker, then they're basically having an aspect of the game closed off from them on the grounds of real-world ability.

That's not something that's done with any other aspect of the game - you don't need to be smart to play a wizard, or strong to play a fighter, or devout to play a cleric. So why do you need to be charismatic to play a diplomat?

There have been many, many times that a player has voiced an impassioned plea to a NPC for assistance, that has taken minutes to complete, and then after the player has rolled his character's exceedingly poor skill check I have stated back an interpretation of the actual statement as, "Gimme yer stuff." In one Alternity campaign I had a player who thought that he could substitute brutality for persuasive ability. After he killed his third NPC as an 'example' of what would happen to others if his questions weren't answered, he asked me why no one was talking. I told him that he was so massively poor at demonstrating that he was serious, that literally no one in the room believed that he would go on with it.

I reward the ATTEMPT to play in character, despite the PLAYER'S actual ability. I do also, however, reward smart problem solving and fluke comments. I've given huge situational bonuses to Diplomacy checks because a player made a good guess about a NPC's motivations, that made even an unskilled success a virtual certainty.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yet if a player has a Black Belt in three different martial arts, he still has to play a Monk if he wants to use his IRL unarmed combat skills. Why are a player's mental abilities essential to imprint on their characters, but their other skills are unacceptable to similarly imprint?

Because you can't actually beat up an imaginary kobold...but I'd certainly reward creativity in imagining how you'd do so. But not being very smart IRL may make you unable to solve the puzzle, even if your character as an 18 int. The reverse is also true, you can still solve an imaginary puzzle with real smarts, you can't beat up an imaginary kobold with real fists.