Quasqueton
First Post
The Player I'm about to use as an example no longer plays in my game. So I'm not asking for advice or anything like that. Also to note: the way I handle Diplomacy in my game is to have the Player either speak as their character, or explain what they want their character to say, then roll the dice to see how well the PC speaks the words.
One of my former Players always had her PCs take ranks in Diplomacy.
Her first character was an elven ranger/rogue with a dark personality. I was surprised after a few game sessions to notice on her character sheet that she had ranks in Diplomacy. This character was a dark, loner type, who really had no reason to travel with the party. The skill just didn't seem to make sense for the character. But I said nothing to the Player about it.
Her second character (after the first left the group) was another elf ranger/rogue, but less dark. This character also had ranks in Diplomacy. This character was, admittedly, the same character but with a lighter personality and a reason to go with the party.
Her third character (after the second died in a near TPK) was a human bard/fighter. This character of course had maxed out Diplomacy. This character was made party leader (by the Players/PCs, not me, and agreed to by the bard Player) because he was the only one with a positive Charisma score. But all "leading" was done at the prompting of other Players/PCs.
Her fourth character (after the third was grappled to death by a grell) was a human monk. This character also had max ranks in Diplomacy.
Her fifth character (after the fourth exited because the Player didn't like it) was a elf bard/fighter. This character again had max ranks in Diplomacy.
But here is the weird thing: she (the Player) *never* tried Diplomacy. The only times her characters ever attempted any Diplomacy with NPCs is when the rest of the party nudged her, strongly, in that direction. She actually refused to be the face person in more than one situation. The Player was not an outgoing personality. She is rather reserved, especially compared to her boyfriend who is perhaps the most outspoken (in a good way) of the group.
There were many times when some other PC (with no Charisma or social skills) stepped up to the NPCs and did the talking (usually with little good effect) because the Diplomat wouldn't do it on her own. Many times the group prompted and hinted to get her to make talky with the NPCs, but she was resistant.
When I saw the fifth character, I asked her directly, in an e-mail, why she took Diplomacy but never wanted to use it. I mean, if you don't want to use the skill, why not put the ranks in something you do want to use occasionally? Unfortunately, she got very defensive, and thought I was suggesting she change the character (the whole character, not just change the skill) because I didn't want her to have the skill.
She implied that she didn't often get a chance to use the skill, not that she didn't want to use the skill -- despite the fact that I called for Diplomacy checks *many* times throughout the campaign. I was rather stunned by her attitude on this. I don't know how she thought there was no opportunity for diplomacy. Hell, every PC in the game made a Diplomacy roll at least once, and often a few times, throughout the campaign -- even those with 8 Charisma and no social skills. The PC fighter took 3 or 4 ranks in Diplomacy specifically because she was seeing how important the skill was (and had bonus skill points from Intelligence).
The party badly needed a diplomat. Out of 6 PCs, Charismas were: 8, 8, 10, 10, 10, and 15 for the latest bard. The 10 Charisma fighter had 3 or 4 ranks in Diplomacy, and without the bard, she was the one who did the group talking.
But not only did she not want to use any diplomacy in situations that she could use it, she actually was very antagonistic and insulting to some NPCs. In one important game session, the party was confronted by an enemy high mage (leader of a group in violent opposition to the PC party) in a truce-like encounter. The mage wanted to parley. But this Player would not take the role as diplomat for the group. And when the others in the group tried feebly to negotiate with the mage (remember, low Charismas and little to no social skills), this Player was abrassive and insulting to the mage. The PC actually left the scene of the parley in a huff.
The look on the other Players' faces showed they were stunned and exasperated. It became painfully clear to everyone at the game table that they could not rely on this Player for diplomacy. And everyone became fine with that concept. No one wanted to force the Player into a role she didn't want, but everyone was confused because the Player willingly put [max] ranks in the Diplomacy skill.
It was just very, very strange to see a Player put full ranks into a skill, for 5 different characters, and then fight so hard against using that skill. Like a character with Hide and Move Silently, but refusing to sneak, ever. And even intentionally *making* noise to prevent others from sneaking. Wow. Very odd.
Have you ever seen anything like this? I've heard of a Player who always created mage characters, but then was always wanting to charge the front line in melee combat.
Quasqueton
One of my former Players always had her PCs take ranks in Diplomacy.
Her first character was an elven ranger/rogue with a dark personality. I was surprised after a few game sessions to notice on her character sheet that she had ranks in Diplomacy. This character was a dark, loner type, who really had no reason to travel with the party. The skill just didn't seem to make sense for the character. But I said nothing to the Player about it.
Her second character (after the first left the group) was another elf ranger/rogue, but less dark. This character also had ranks in Diplomacy. This character was, admittedly, the same character but with a lighter personality and a reason to go with the party.
Her third character (after the second died in a near TPK) was a human bard/fighter. This character of course had maxed out Diplomacy. This character was made party leader (by the Players/PCs, not me, and agreed to by the bard Player) because he was the only one with a positive Charisma score. But all "leading" was done at the prompting of other Players/PCs.
Her fourth character (after the third was grappled to death by a grell) was a human monk. This character also had max ranks in Diplomacy.
Her fifth character (after the fourth exited because the Player didn't like it) was a elf bard/fighter. This character again had max ranks in Diplomacy.
But here is the weird thing: she (the Player) *never* tried Diplomacy. The only times her characters ever attempted any Diplomacy with NPCs is when the rest of the party nudged her, strongly, in that direction. She actually refused to be the face person in more than one situation. The Player was not an outgoing personality. She is rather reserved, especially compared to her boyfriend who is perhaps the most outspoken (in a good way) of the group.
There were many times when some other PC (with no Charisma or social skills) stepped up to the NPCs and did the talking (usually with little good effect) because the Diplomat wouldn't do it on her own. Many times the group prompted and hinted to get her to make talky with the NPCs, but she was resistant.
When I saw the fifth character, I asked her directly, in an e-mail, why she took Diplomacy but never wanted to use it. I mean, if you don't want to use the skill, why not put the ranks in something you do want to use occasionally? Unfortunately, she got very defensive, and thought I was suggesting she change the character (the whole character, not just change the skill) because I didn't want her to have the skill.
She implied that she didn't often get a chance to use the skill, not that she didn't want to use the skill -- despite the fact that I called for Diplomacy checks *many* times throughout the campaign. I was rather stunned by her attitude on this. I don't know how she thought there was no opportunity for diplomacy. Hell, every PC in the game made a Diplomacy roll at least once, and often a few times, throughout the campaign -- even those with 8 Charisma and no social skills. The PC fighter took 3 or 4 ranks in Diplomacy specifically because she was seeing how important the skill was (and had bonus skill points from Intelligence).
The party badly needed a diplomat. Out of 6 PCs, Charismas were: 8, 8, 10, 10, 10, and 15 for the latest bard. The 10 Charisma fighter had 3 or 4 ranks in Diplomacy, and without the bard, she was the one who did the group talking.
But not only did she not want to use any diplomacy in situations that she could use it, she actually was very antagonistic and insulting to some NPCs. In one important game session, the party was confronted by an enemy high mage (leader of a group in violent opposition to the PC party) in a truce-like encounter. The mage wanted to parley. But this Player would not take the role as diplomat for the group. And when the others in the group tried feebly to negotiate with the mage (remember, low Charismas and little to no social skills), this Player was abrassive and insulting to the mage. The PC actually left the scene of the parley in a huff.
The look on the other Players' faces showed they were stunned and exasperated. It became painfully clear to everyone at the game table that they could not rely on this Player for diplomacy. And everyone became fine with that concept. No one wanted to force the Player into a role she didn't want, but everyone was confused because the Player willingly put [max] ranks in the Diplomacy skill.
It was just very, very strange to see a Player put full ranks into a skill, for 5 different characters, and then fight so hard against using that skill. Like a character with Hide and Move Silently, but refusing to sneak, ever. And even intentionally *making* noise to prevent others from sneaking. Wow. Very odd.
Have you ever seen anything like this? I've heard of a Player who always created mage characters, but then was always wanting to charge the front line in melee combat.
Quasqueton
Last edited:
