The need for social skills in D&D

[buzz]

"A good rpg challenges both the player and the character."

Sure. I think the issue is just the degree to which you weight one or the other. I tend to agree with Jacen that +10 for player performance is a wee bit much.

Where does this come from?!? I couldn't find that in the RAW.

Looking at the SRD (sorry, no PHB in front of me), it says "You can change the attitudes of others," and in opposed checks, "the winner gains the advantage." It never says anything about Diplomacy insuring an outcome, only that it affects attitude. Also, unlike Bluff, Diplomacy never addresses the content of the PC's argument, i.e., modifiers for believability or risk. Diplomacy is solely about your delivery.

And, I would argue, if someone is doing something for you, you are far more likely to wish them well. Remember, per RAW, those attitude adjustments are important not for how the character feels but for what the character does based upon how he feels.

All the adjustments do is, basically, give the DM an idea of whether the NPC likes the PC or not. Whether the NPC likes them enough to, say, lend them 10,000gp is still a DM call.

Sure. But, so what? These things are not mutually exclusive.

Well, they are as far as Diplomacy reads to me.

Then you ought to houserule, like me.

I've certainly considered it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure. I think the issue is just the degree to which you weight one or the other. I tend to agree with Jacen that +10 for player performance is a wee bit much.

{shrug} To each his own.

Looking at the SRD (sorry, no PHB in front of me), it says "You can change the attitudes of others," and in opposed checks, "the winner gains the advantage." It never says anything about Diplomacy insuring an outcome, only that it affects attitude. Also, unlike Bluff, Diplomacy never addresses the content of the PC's argument, i.e., modifiers for believability or risk. Diplomacy is solely about your delivery.

But what does not "insuring an outcome" have to do with your previous statement, to which my question was addressed?

Also, Diplomacy technically has nothing to do with what you're saying, just how you say it.​

The SRD doesn't tell you how diplomacy works in the game world (content vs. delivery)...just that it works.

I've certainly considered it.

As well you should!

 

[buzz]

But what does not "insuring an outcome" have to do with your previous statement, to which my question was addressed?

I meant that Diplomacy is not your skill in getting people to agree with you, it's your skill in getting people to like you. Whether you're asking the duke to lend you an army or to pass the salt, all Diplomacy does is determine how he feels about you. Whether he lends you that army or passes you the salt is still up to the DM.

This is why I'm not sure bonuses to the roll based on the argument being made are appropriate, because the Diplomacy check doesn't directly relate to the argument, it relates to the presentation.

My beef is that I don't think players really care whether the duke likes their PC; what they want to know is whether he agrees to help them or not. I think Diplomacy would be more useful if it determined the latter instead of the former.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I meant that Diplomacy is not your skill in getting people to agree with you, it's your skill in getting people to like you. Whether you're asking the duke to lend you an army or to pass the salt, all Diplomacy does is determine how he feels about you. Whether he lends you that army or passes you the salt is still up to the DM.

This is why I'm not sure bonuses to the roll based on the argument being made are appropriate, because the Diplomacy check doesn't directly relate to the argument, it relates to the presentation.

My beef is that I don't think players really care whether the duke likes their PC; what they want to know is whether he agrees to help them or not. I think Diplomacy would be more useful if it determined the latter instead of the former.

Ah.

Then, as you can see, my house rules for diplomacy would solve both your problems. Obviously, knowing whether or not the Duke wants to help you isn't sufficient -- does he want to help you more than whatever his other duties are?

Enter the EN World Fairs & Tournaments book, which has rules for contested DCs and degree of success. Enter the debate rules from Medieval Players' Handbook. Enter diplomacy that is modified based on reasons to agree as well as personality.

Of course, good DMing is still required. But, suddenly, that check means something.

 

[LostSoul]

Talking about meta-mechanics in that other thread, there's an easy one to apply to Diplomacy checks or whatever. From Burning Wheel, which I'm sure buzz is familiar with.

Player states his intent - what does he want? Then he describes how he's doing it. How he does it determines what he rolls to get what he wants. Could be Bluff, could be Diplomacy, could be Knowledge: Nobility, or whatever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Whether he lends you that army or passes you the salt is still up to the DM.

BTW, there is no part of the game that is not "still up to the DM".


RC

 

[DonTadow]

BTW, there is no part of the game that is not "still up to the DM".


RC

Isn't most of the game up to the DM? From how the adventure proceeds to what happens next.

 

[buzz]

BTW, there is no part of the game that is not "still up to the DM".

There's parts with clear results, though. E.g., a greatsword does 2d6, a to-hit roll that meets or beats AC results in a hit, etc.

Enter the EN World Fairs & Tournaments book, which has rules for contested DCs and degree of success. Enter the debate rules from Medieval Players' Handbook.

Spiff! All I knew about were the rules in Dynasties & Demagogues. I'll have to keep an eye peeled for these.

 

[buzz]

Talking about meta-mechanics in that other thread, there's an easy one to apply to Diplomacy checks or whatever. From Burning Wheel, which I'm sure buzz is familiar with.

Player states his intent - what does he want? Then he describes how he's doing it. How he does it determines what he rolls to get what he wants. Could be Bluff, could be Diplomacy, could be Knowledge: Nobility, or whatever.

Yeah, this is exactly what I'd like to see.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's parts with clear results, though. E.g., a greatsword does 2d6, a to-hit roll that meets or beats AC results in a hit, etc.

Is there any roll to which a circumstance modifier cannot be applied? I would agree, though, that if weapon damage (say) changed with any frequency, I'd go from to as a player and to ( ) as a DM!

Spiff! All I knew about were the rules in Dynasties & Demagogues. I'll have to keep an eye peeled for these.

Dynasties & Demagogues is pretty good. I like the Maze of Bureaucracy trap.