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

[Greenfield]

Short answer? When the player character starts the conversation with the home owner, ask if he's using Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, or just sweet reason.

Then ask him to make his pitch, noting that what he says and does next will be circumstance modifiers on the roll.

While this isn't a railroad, it is a proactive signpost spelling out their in-character options.

If he chooses Diplomacy, make a note on how extensive his argumentation is. Presume that the character knows how to use his skills, even if the player doesn't. A short outline type argument is a minus modifier in my book. Anything second person is.

For example: "Well, I'm going to take the tack that we're tracking down a potential plague and ask if he's heard odd sounds in the house that might be plague rats. After all, every old house has sounds. That will give us an excuse to look for 'rat holes'."

That's about as strong a second person, outline type argument as you'll see. In my book it would be maybe a +1 modifier. But I may be a bit hard in this area, in light of the fact that not everyone is a glib liar or necessarily comfortable with first person role playing.

But that doesn't mean that their character isn't a glib liar,able to come up with a good cover on short notice.

Same pitch, in first person might be...

"Sir? I'm working with Friar Bernard here, trying to track down the cause of a few illnesses in the area. We're concerned about it getting out of hand. I mean, no one wants a plague in town, do they? So, to start with, have you seen any rats or rat dropping about the property? Have you heard any odd noises at night? Notice any odd drafts when the weather is cold? <pause> Well, if you and perhaps your good wife could help us, I'd appreciate it. We'd like, with your assistance of course, to do a quick check of the property for hollow walls where vermin might hide or breed, and for any damage they might have done to your home. The church appreciates your cooperation."

While that could easily be said in less than a minute, it conveys the feeling your character is trying to evoke, plays on the man's normal concerns about his home and family, implies some sort of official sanction from the church, all while visibly leaving the man in a controlling position over anyone who gets involved in the search.

To be honest, the problem we encounter far more often is that a well designed Diplomat can get away with anything, by the rules. Diplomacy isn't an opposed check, the target numbers are fixed. There's no "Save vs Common Sense" for your target and nothing that even resembles a guideline for a DM to use for circumstance modifiers.

Seriously, my Bard once talked a Rogue who had come to kidnap a PC to not only forgo his mission, but to please just lay down on this alter over here while the Cleric of Hades does his little ritual. It will be a brief out of body experience, and then you'll be equipped to guide us on our great quest. Your name will be recorded in the sagas told for ages to come. Which name did you want recorded, by the way, as I'm sure that a man skilled in your trade probably has several...

You get the picture. Diplomacy has been defined as "The art of telling a man to go to Hell in such a way that he looks forward to the trip." I put that to the test, in game, and with a good roll (A +27 at the skill check helped) the DM conceded that I'd rolled a success. Should never have worked, even if I'd rolled a million.

So as a DM, don't be afraid to prompt the players a little bit at key junctures. At the same time, have a backup plan in case they don't do what you expect. And be prepared to cast "Dispel BS" on insane efforts like the one I just described.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I prefer ROLE playing to ROLL playing in these situations. What I mean by that is that I have the PC's actually talk to the NPC's the way they would try to talk someone into doing something or not doing something BEFORE I ask for a roll of their dice. Based on how they talk to the NPC's I will either give a bonus or a penalty to them for the upcoming check (between -10 and +10). The caveat here is that if they are good enough to convince with their role playing, I don't ask for an actual roll and allow them to convince the NPC to do what they wish.

This does two things:
1) Gives them a chance to immerse themselves in the game more via the role-playing.
2) Gives actual positives (with a chance to auto-win) before the roll of the dice on the table.

I've never been a fan of straight up roll-playing in the social challenges or skill checks, it just doesn't seem like a good way to ROLE play in this ROLE PLAYING GAME. Too many people get hung up on the dice determining everything and forget about their imaginations and immersion into these fantasy worlds.

Just my 2 cents,
Trav

 

[MarkB]

I prefer ROLE playing to ROLL playing in these situations. What I mean by that is that I have the PC's actually talk to the NPC's the way they would try to talk someone into doing something or not doing something BEFORE I ask for a roll of their dice. Based on how they talk to the NPC's I will either give a bonus or a penalty to them for the upcoming check (between -10 and +10). The caveat here is that if they are good enough to convince with their role playing, I don't ask for an actual roll and allow them to convince the NPC to do what they wish.

This does two things:
1) Gives them a chance to immerse themselves in the game more via the role-playing.
2) Gives actual positives (with a chance to auto-win) before the roll of the dice on the table.

I've never been a fan of straight up roll-playing in the social challenges or skill checks, it just doesn't seem like a good way to ROLE play in this ROLE PLAYING GAME. Too many people get hung up on the dice determining everything and forget about their imaginations and immersion into these fantasy worlds.

Just my 2 cents,
Trav

This appears to be what happened here. The player tried to actually talk to the NPC, did such a poor job that he got a "no" within moments, and then gave up.

Some people aren't so good at conversation. But since part of the appeal of a role-playing game is to be something you're not in real life, they may choose to play a character who is. Should they really be getting a -10 penalty just because they don't share their character's skills?

 

[Ryujin]

Time frames are for in-game, not player/dm interaction. I've run into damned few people who have an actual 18+ CHA (OK, maybe the German exchange student I was doing a computer installation for today, but WOW!), so you can't expect a player to be able to act like his character. The more time spent and the better real life attempt made, however, the more positive adjustments I make on the roll.

Negotiate, intimidate, or bluff is easy to figure out. Are the statements largely true? Then it's negotiate. Are they false? Bluff. Do they involve an "or else"? Intimidate.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

This appears to be what happened here. The player tried to actually talk to the NPC, did such a poor job that he got a "no" within moments, and then gave up.

Some people aren't so good at conversation. But since part of the appeal of a role-playing game is to be something you're not in real life, they may choose to play a character who is. Should they really be getting a -10 penalty just because they don't share their character's skills?

What I'd give a penalty for is if they were totally rude/obnoxious to the NPC, this would turn anyone off in the real world too. What if I came up to you and said "Hey you ***K, give me your phone right now I need to make a call!"? You'd instantly take a dislike to me and tell me to go ***K off right? The same goes with NPC's. If you talk to them nicely (going with diplomacy/bluff here rather than intimidate) and say something more along the lines of "Please sir, I'm in dire need of the usage of your cell phone, my wife is about to deliver our baby right now." You'd be much more likely to take a better attitude toward me and my situation, I wasn't rude or obnoxious, I was polite and showed an actual need. The same thing goes with NPC's again, they will react accordingly, this isn't about the roll, it's about the role. Simple as that.

EDIT: The player in question should be a better role-player all of us have seen how to act and know right from wrong, plus there are other people at the table. I won't penalize someone who isn't a great speaker, I'd penalize for someone who portrays a bad attitude when trying to convince someone (NPC) to do something that they normally wouldn't do. If their PC has a bad attitude all the time (via flaw or build) that PC shouldn't be the "face" of the party to begin with

 

[Mallus]

There was no diplomacy check because the persuasion was too brief.

Fudge the time taken. What did positive outcome did you gain by ruling the interaction was too brief to qualify for a Diplomacy check?

There were grounds for a rushed diplomacy check, but I felt that would've been unfair to roll it since the chance of success was very low (a huge penalty). It would've been rolled only by request.

Your players were talking it out, as opposed to murdering their way in or burning the house down and searching the ashes. This is a good thing.

You probably just should have called for a plain old Diplomacy check .

The first problem here was one of design: if the PCs absolutely needed to get into the house, it should have been easy to get in. Adventures should be easy to start, but hard to complete/win.

The second problem was with the implementation of the Diplomacy skill. There was no (good) reason to pull out a stopwatch and rule the group's attempt at communication was too quick.

 

[airwalkrr]

The onus of using a social skill is usually on the PCs. If they want to use the skill, then should state they are using it. This can be a means to bypass roleplaying (if the group is more fond of hack-n-slash than RP) or as a last ditch attempt to salvage a crumbling situation. Upon entering the house, the PC with Diplomacy in question should be prepared to state "I will use Diplomacy to persuade the occupants to allow me to enter." At that point, it might be up to you as the DM to impose the -10 penalty for rushed Diplomacy because you know the people in the house will not entertain the PCs for more than a few seconds (which is reasonable, as many people refuse to speak to door-to-door salesmen and such for more than a few seconds). Or the PCs might have stated their case to the occupants of the house and, seeing that their pleas fall on deaf ears, declare they are attempting a rushed Diplomacy check as a last ditch effort. But Diplomacy (or any social skill) should never be required IMHO to succeed at an encounter and progress the story. If one of the PCs has a clever idea, let it work simply because it is clever. If a PC has a terrible idea, they will probably fail but a skill check could salvage the situation.

I can liken this to the PCs trying to cross an icy bridge. It would take a DC 25 Balance check to cross the bridge, but the PCs cleverly have the rogue climb up and rig a rope and pulley or block and tackle system to carry them across. Now if the block and tackle fails because the rogue failed to notice that the rock to which he had fastened the block and tackle was very loose, then the plan fails, but the first PC attempting to cross can still make a Balance check to see if the situation can be salvaged (and if the PCs were smart about it, they sent the character with the best Balance bonus across first).

If the PCs dress as town guards and present a (possibly forged) warrant to enter the place, then such a plan is clever and should grant them access. Of course, the owner of the house might be an actuary or administrator who is familiar with the town guard protocol and documentation and represents the PCs for the frauds they are. At this point the PCs can salvage the situation by using Diplomacy to try to convince the owner of the house that their intentions are good and that they merely need to pass through the house to find a secret door which might very well put the occupants of the house at danger. It might lead to a goblin warren, or worse!

Finally, a good DM will always have a back-up to his back-up. The players are intended to win, whether by hook or crook. I would never design a situation such that the ONLY means to progress the story is a single secret passage within a single home and that persuading the family to let them in is the only means of ingress. There might be a man-hole to the sewers nearby which also contains a secret passage. As someone mentioned above you can brute-force it and cause a tunnel to collapse under the PCs as they are walking down the street. A member of the Thieves' Guild might be standing on the opposite side of the street, witness the exchange between the PCs and the family in the home and offer to share an alternate entrance to whatever it is they seek to enter (for a fee of course). There are numerous ways to approach this. But never design a story so that the ONLY means of progression hinges on the success of a single skill such as Diplomacy. That might work well in some kinds of video games where your Diplomacy (or whatever negotiating skill it is) has to be at a certain level to ensure that you can survive the dangers beyond, but this does not work well for tabletop role-playing games. The beauty of tabletop games is that there is no limit to where you can go and what you can do. It is a truly open world with limitless possibilities. And you should run your game accordingly.

 

[BriarMonkey]

...
As for the dilemma with railroading and getting them to check for secret doors... you can always just put your dungeon somewhere else! ...

This.

Don't worry about whether a roll is good, bad, or otherwise. Don't worry about which skill should have been used. Just move the entry point. If a passage must be found, then move it to an abandoned warehouse, or that creepy broken down house across from the cemetary.

I have to point out that if you get hung up on this skill roll, then what are you going to do if their rolls for finding the secret passage all fail?

 

[Rune]

In my game the players need to investigate a house for secret doors. This is crucial for the campaign and I can easily compare this to a dungeon crawl and the moment where the players first enter the dungeon; if they don't enter the dungeon, there is no dungeon crawl. Searching for secret doors from the house is the nexus of the adventure.

...I have made an effort to minimize railroading.

If you really want to minimize railroading, you'll have provide more options for your players to continue than just one. (Or, better yet, trust your players to come up with their own options, and then let those work!)

I'm seeing 4 ways your entry into your "dungeon crawl" could end before it begins. 1) you want them to talk in real time, 2) a single die roll determines entry, 3) another die roll determine whether they find they secret door, and 4) they have to open the secret door. I don't think rolling should have been required for any of those things since if any of them fail, the adventure fails.

Also this. Let's say (since I don't know the numbers involved) that the players had a 3 in 4 chance to accomplish any one of those four things (assuming you actually even made it to the dice-rolling part!). That means the players had a less than one in three chance of actually being able to discover the dungeon and get on with the adventure.

As a general rule, you should never require a die roll if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of it. If you absolutely must attach random chance to the possibility of progress, you should at least stack the odds in your favor (by, as mentioned above, providing multiple distinct means of progress).

 

[Jon_Dahl]

As someone mentioned above you can brute-force it and cause a tunnel to collapse under the PCs as they are walking down the street. A member of the Thieves' Guild might be standing on the opposite side of the street, witness the exchange between the PCs and the family in the home and offer to share an alternate entrance to whatever it is they seek to enter (for a fee of course). There are numerous ways to approach this. But never design a story so that the ONLY means of progression hinges on the success of a single skill such as Diplomacy. That might work well in some kinds of video games where your Diplomacy (or whatever negotiating skill it is) has to be at a certain level to ensure that you can survive the dangers beyond, but this does not work well for tabletop role-playing games. The beauty of tabletop games is that there is no limit to where you can go and what you can do. It is a truly open world with limitless possibilities. And you should run your game accordingly.

What's in the dungeon? Maybe it comes out, eats the people in the house, and goes on a rampage. Be sure to describe it so the PCs feel really guity about sitting on the butts in the tavern.

A few posters have mentioned that I put the entrance somewhere else. But it's not that simple.
In that dungeon there's the corpse of the father of an important NPC. There is also the corpse of a previous PC. The NPC will not rest until he finds his father and he will not help the PCs in their other quests unless he finds his father.
The very small dungeon, meant to accommodate one or two people, was built by the grandmaster of the Stonemasons' Guild. It's not consistent if its entrance is found accidently outside the house. The grandmaster would've been certain about his privacy and it's not consistent that someone with such superior skills would allow someone to find the dungeon by accident, at least outside his house.

The players are well aware that the house used to belong to the greatest of stonemasons and thus any accidents or even hints of oversights are not believable and would damage verisimilitude.

It's a good idea to have the wife appear at the market place and talk to the players, that could work. I just don't understand why would she talk to strangers about anything related to her family.