Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 1956680" data-attributes="member: 3854">Apparently, technically, it is a house rule. By the RAW, the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills cannot be used on PCs. [Diplomacy and Intimidate are the only skills that change a character's attitude.] There is a game mechanics barrier that prevents these two skills from having any affect at all on a PC.Apparently, PCs cannot be stirred by a great speech. PCs cannot be convinced by a strong argument. PCs cannot be worried by a threatening stance. PCs cannot be bothered by harsh words. PC attitude is inviolate, and the Player has no obligation, whatsoever, to role play his character within any emotional context from the characters in the campaign world.Although, if the *DM* can make the great speech or strong argument, or if he can color his description of the threatening stance or harsh words well enough, and can affect the *Player*, then it seems no one has a problem. But such amazing verbal and descriptive skills are rare in a DM playing a hobby. It is not a "system" I created or really officially enforced. It is just something that kind of came up during play. Even the PCs occassionally use Diplomacy with each other.One of the most memorable instances of an NPC using Diplomacy on a PC was when an NPC seduced a PC into bed. We role played the intial encounter in a tavern where the PC was trying to get info from the (known-to-be-a-ladies'-man) NPC. During that encounter, I said the NPC was using Diplomacy to seduce her. I rolled the NPC's Diplomacy check (very high) and the Player played along with the result. We "faded to black" when she agreed to go back to his home for the evening. The PC got the info she was after, but the Player allowed the in-game emotional manipulation to work and role played with it. No one was angry or cheated.Just in our most recent game, the PCs were supposed to board a ship for a day's sail to another coast town. One PC absolutely did not want to get on the ship. She wanted to go to the town by horse instead (a 3-day trek). The "diplomat" PC tried convincing her with a Diplomacy check. I would have prefered the Player actually play out the speach as best he could, and then roll the dice to see, mechanically, how well his words should have sounded, but I think the Player chose just to roll the dice to save time (simply boarding the ship was just taking too much time). Unfortunately, in this instance, the Diplomacy check was not very good, so the party had to convince the reluctant PC by just everyone boarding and showing that she'd have to ride alone if she didn't want to come on the ship.In my campaign, there have been far more instances of PCs using Diplomacy on PCs (usually for good purposes) than NPCs using either Diplomacy or Intimidate on PCs (for good or bad purposes). Usually, the Players play along with the rolls in whatever appropriate way their character would respond in game. Often the PC-on-PC Diplomacy checks are just to have an in-game reason for a reluctant PC to go along with a "plan".Exactly! The Player gets to choose how their character reacts, and usually they respond appropriately for the roll and their character. No one gets forced to act in any particular way. It's just an unstated, but understood and mutually respected, "agreement" that a Player should and will play his/her character within the context of the game mechanics.And it is not just in the game that I DM. I'm a Player in another game, with the same group, and we all follow the same concept when I'm not DMing. And I bet it is not that unusual in other groups. Do PCs ignore the high-Charisma PC in the group? Or is the high-Charisma PC (paladin, cleric, sorcerer, bard) often the accepted *in-game* leader of the group? Why is that? Is it because the Players usually accept the concept that in-game, the high-Charisma character is more "follow worthy" than the low-Charisma barbarian?Quasqueton</blockquote>

Verification