What can you do with Diplomacy?

[S'mon]

The problem is, people expect diplomacy, even high levels of diplomacy, to operate like magic: That's not how diplomacy works. You don't simply wave your hand and tell them that these aren't the droids they're looking for.

That's the impression I get. Even if it's supported by the scanty rules given, I don't think it's what the designers intended - that a good Diplomacy roll acts as Charm Monster with no saving throw.

I do agree that in most cases Diplomacy should be usable and have significant in-game effects - at least comparable to a successful attack roll. CE Bandits changed from Hostile to Friendly would offer to let the PCs past with only a 'nominal toll'. To Helpful, they'd let the PCs past without charge and maybe offer useful advice on other dangers ahead. I can't see a DC40 Diplomacy roll persuading a Lich to hand over his phylactery to his arch-enemies, although he might be persuaded to reveal its location. I can't see even a DC100 Diplomacy roll persuading a Solar to switch sides and join the armies of Graz'zt - unless the Graz'zite Diplomatist had something good to work with:

"Oh, so Pelor turned you down for that raise again, eh? That's too bad..."

 

[GamerMan12]

As mentioned above, according to D&D 3.5 rules changing hostile to friendly in one round is DC45.

I would prefer this D&D 3.5 rule to the other one mentioned in this thread.

I would further add that the defintion of hostile is somewhat weak, it is someone who is prepared to take a risk to hurt you. Now in the case of someone who will be punished or executed if they do not hurt you, I would add a further penalty, to the diplomacy roll.

Compare a hostile group of bandits out for loot, to a company of troops on the frontline with orders to attack anyone they encounter.

Additionally it says in the rsrd that a successful Diplomacy roll may not be enough to change someone's mind, correctly giving latitude to the DM.


GM12

 

[Pielorinho]

I'd be frustrated as well in your game.

You made a house rule on the fly, to the disadvantage of your player's, without warning them of that rule before they devoted precious resources and unchangeable skill ranks to a skill that you clearly do not believe in.

You've created a game where killing people is always going to be a more logical route than talking to them, because the assumption will always be there in the back of each player's mind that you won't let them "get away with" the diplomatic approach no matter how well they roll. However, they know for sure if they roll a 20 and then another 20, they will critically hit the target.

It's your game...

You could hardly be further off-base, Mistwell.

First, in the game I run, diplomacy is crucial. The game tends to be based in large cities, and if you act out of bounds, you'll find the full force of a magically-augmented government coming down on your head. If you want to accomplish anything in this highly political environment, making friends and allegiances is absolutely necessary. Very, very often, killing an opponent is a surefire way to sign your own death warrant. Indeed, in the last session, the PCs were ambushed by a pair of demonic Foo dogs (hee hee) which they had to escape from without killing, lest the dogs' deaths pulled down the wrath of their owners -- elite forces from the kingdom's army.

Second, if the rules suggest that you can get someone to do whatever you want with a high enough diplomacy check, then the rules are so freakin' stupid in this regard that a house-rule is absolutely necessary. If a player knows the rules well enough to know they have this feature, AND THE PLAYER DOESN'T ALERT ME TO THIS PROBLEM, then I have no problem houseruling away the loophole the player thinks he's found. If the player isn't aware of this stupidity, then I have no problem houseruling it away before the player becomes aware of it.

It's possible there's a rule in the player's handbook somewhere stating that a nonmagical pebble dropped on a castle from a sufficient height will explode, destroying the castle and any inhabitants. Such a rule could not destroy my suspension of disbelief any more than this version of the diplomacy rule does; if a player showed it to me mid-battle and expected it to work, they'd discover the power of house-rules.

I run a political game in which character, spectacle, and story take precedence over rules. Diplomacy is so vital to the game that using an absurd rule for it would destroy the game entirely.

Daniel

 

[Voadam]

ONE: "It depends on how well or poorly you role play the situation."

The first is the easiest to refute. If you make a skill check depend on a player's role playing ability, you might as well remove the Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate skills from the game. In fact, I don't see much reason to even have a Charisma score. Skills, and all character abilities with rules for that matter, never rely on the role playing ability of a player for them, to function. Skills are as much a function of a character (rather than a player) as the ability to cast a spell or swing a sword. I, a player, cannot effectively fight with a sword, nor can I cast a spell. My character, however, can do those things. Similarly, I do not have a high Charisma, nor do I have high ranks and bonuses and magic giving me a very high Diplomacy score. My character, however, does. My character knows what to say in that situation, whereas I do not.

You shoudln't penalize your players for using a skill they themselves are not good at (unless you make your Rogue player tumble around the room for you before allowing his character to do the same).

Now, before people choke all over this point, I am NOT saying that the player should not role play the situation. I fully agree that a good DM will play things out, because it is fun, adds color, and overall works well and is part of the game (and I often do so with swinging a sword and casting a spell as well). Nor am I saying role playing has NO impact, since the role playing does influence what goals the character is seeking, how they generally want to achieve those goals, and what goals and methods the opponant is using.

However, the RESULT of this role playing situation should come from the die roll modified by the skill ranks and bonuses. If the player says his character is seeking the cessation of hostilities, even if his method of saying it is "Dude, I tell that thing to lay off.", and he gets a 51 on his Diplomacy check (a truly incredible score), the opponant WILL cease hostilities. You can assume that the character said something eloquent, engaging, and compelling. Something you as a DM and your Player cannot possibly fully imagine, because neither of you have approached the realm of being around someone who could speak so well, use body language to such great effect, and overall make the worst people feel good about themselves and you.

Couple things here.

It is perfectly reasonable to use social skill rolls for "offscreen only" events. When you are in character talking to someone it is perfectly reasonable to base interactions off of what and how things are said in the context of the conversation. No die rolls.

What does this leave the skill roll for? When you are not first person roleplaying out the encounter "in my downtime I work on improving relations with the dwarven ambassador." "I speak soothingly to the frightened child to calm him down." etc.

A DM can also use your character's Charisma and social skills as a guide to how people react to in character roleplay, a high charisma character has an easier time getting people's attention and is less likely to be cut off, a high intimidate character can scare people with less effort, etc.

Is this as mechanically effective as skill points in spot or hide,maybe not but so what?

To have the RESULT of in character interactions determined by a skill roll instead of the interaction itself removes the point of interacting.

I go the same way for intelligence and figuring out puzzles and plots, those are for players to figure out, not mechanical rolls based off a characters mechanical scores.

 

[Merova]

Currency & Extended Tasks

Is this as mechanically effective as skill points in spot or hide,maybe not but so what?

To have the RESULT of in character interactions determined by a skill roll instead of the interaction itself removes the point of interacting.

I go the same way for intelligence and figuring out puzzles and plots, those are for players to figure out, not mechanical rolls based off a characters mechanical scores.

Hi all!

I strongly disagree with this. As game constructs, any resource spent in a stat or skill ought to have equivalent value to any other. This is called fair currency. Think of your skill points as a type of money; why should you spend this "money" on inferior goods? GMs, who put the success of the contest on the part of player "drama" rather than character "karma," are cheating their players, IMO.

For the most part, I agree with Mistwell. However, I feel that the current system for implementing social challenge is faulty. It revolves around a "one roll" pass/fail mechanic. A system for extanded task resolution, much as is implemented in Dynasties & Demagogues, would help out with this task.

This would help out in two ways. First, it would allow fortune to even out; one lucky roll will not save the day nor will one awful roll dash your hopes. Second, it would require that the designers focus on integrating a balanced and coherent approach to social challenge. One which doesn't allow the "social powergamer" to bypass the threat system. As has been pointed out, a socially maxed PC at 6th level can "defeat" threats at CR 20 with a single good Diplomacy roll. It's unbalanced.

This agrument should hold true for all types of "in-game" challenges, including problem solving.

Thanks for reading.

---Merova, social powergamer since '87.

 

[FutureMarauderX]

oops

 

[Pielorinho]

GMs, who put the success of the contest on the part of player "drama" rather than character "karma," are cheating their players, IMO.

I feel just the opposite. A game in which social interactions are determined primarily by dice rolls instead of by drama would bore the spit out of me; I would look for the first opportunity to bow gracefully out of the game.
Diplomacy skills DO matter in my game, but it's a fuzzy thing. I'll have someone roll at the beginning of an encounter, and I'll take that roll into consideration throughout the encounter. Didja roll a 7 on your diplomacy check? Expect the guard not to pay much attention to you, to move you on your way as quickly as possible, and to call for your physical removal (or even detention) if you don't get out of there. Roll a 37? Expect the guard to recognize you as a clearly powerful superior person, and to do everything reasonable to stay in your good graces, in the expectation that staying in your good graces will help him out in the long term. Don't expect him to risk his own death for no apparent gain, however.
Imagine for a second if there were a skill called "Hit somebody". It had static DCs, maxing out around 35. It was about the same DC to hit a kobold as to hit a great wyrm red dragon. Magic items to increase the skill were fairly available, such that a 10th-level character could rely on making that DC 35 check about half the time. Wouldn't that make combat a lot more boring?
My game involves a lot of diplomacy. I don't want an implausible system to model the diplomacy.

Daniel

 

[Voadam]

Merova, are you suggesting there should be game mechanics for problem solving? A skill roll so you can figure out a plot?

I'm firmly of the view that game mechanics are for things the Player can't do while thinking and talking are things for the player not the dice to do. I can not physically interact with the monsters so we need game mechanics to handle combat. I can interact with plots and in character conversations so I don't think we need to be ruled by game mechanics when doing so. Intelligence is in the game to define wizard spellcasting power, in game skill facility, and language mastery, hard game mechanics, not PC problem solving. Similarly for Charisma, it affects some skills and is a source of paladin, sorcerer, and cleric class abilities as well as mechanical effects such as the leadership feat, I don't think it should replace first person roleplaying.

As for the equivalency of skills, should innuendo be more useful in dungeon delving? how about profession blacksmith? or perform wind instrument? Some skills just are not as mechanically useful as some others for dungeon delving.

 

[S'mon]

It's possible there's a rule in the player's handbook somewhere stating that a nonmagical pebble dropped on a castle from a sufficient height will explode, destroying the castle and any inhabitants...

If you compare the Falling Object Damage rules to the Structure Hardness & Hit Points rules, you're not far off.

- Which I think makes your point rather well.

 

[S'mon]

Hi all!

I strongly disagree with this. As game constructs, any resource spent in a stat or skill ought to have equivalent value to any other. This is called fair currency. Think of your skill points as a type of money; why should you spend this "money" on inferior goods?

I think this 'equivalent value' is impossible even if it were desirable (IMO it's neither). I think the possibility of sub-optimal choices in character creation is inevitable. The Diplomacy skill should have _some use_ in-game, it doesn't need to be exactly equivalent in 'value' to points spent on Tumble (or whatever).