What can you do with Diplomacy?

[Voadam]

for reference

Here is the 3.5 srd entry on diplomacy for reference

DIPLOMACY (CHA)
Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.
Action: Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a –10 penalty on the check.
Try Again: Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.
Special: A half-elf has a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy checks.
If you have the Negotiator feat, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

INFLUENCING NPC ATTITUDES
Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character, or wild empathy checks made to influence the attitude of an animal or magical beast.

Initial Attitude ————— New Attitude (DC to achieve)—————
Hostile Unfriendly Indifferent Friendly Helpful
Hostile Less than 20 20 25 35 50
Unfriendly Less than 5 5 15 25 40
Indifferent — Less than 1 1 15 30
Friendly — — Less than 1 1 20
Helpful — — — Less than 1 1

Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid

 

[Pielorinho]

Sure, Mistwell, I know I'm suggesting house rules. And I'm happy for you that you don't think they're necessary for your game.

As written, the rules seem to suggest you can get away with just about any absurd, counter-intuitive trick just by having a high diplomacy score. If you can convince a dragon to let you go, no matter what the context of your capture, then I don't know what you couldn't do with the rules as written.

Daniel

 

[Ran]

I have also used the approach Quasqueton defended <not posting cause of his players>, ciscunstance modifiers are a must in my campaign, it reflects the old inn keeper known for not accpeting a deal or the difference in culture from the peoples you encounter...

I use diplomacy WITH the actual role playing because it should never substitute it, players are encouraged to make a good speech and if all they want is "Dude go away k?" then they more than deserve my negative modifier, I want roleplayers too, not just the i roll and hit type of player...

I used modifiers for sometime but have studied about mediation sicne and it helps a lot on it, for example I will present a very common situation:

A couple is getting divorced, they have children and have an impass like "If she takes the car i will want my kids", that reflects a feeling of not being cheated, everyone wants a good result for them, in a divorce there is a great interest in not maing the children suffer too...

What i mean is: in a negotiation there are many other interests behind someone's statement (what is called position due to its difficulty to leave it behind), good negotiators or diplomats, for an instance, should know how to identify better those and deal with them properly.

What do I do? I make the players roleplay then roll, based on the roll i give them information on the person's other interests and they gotta roleplay something for it... it makes diplomacy VERY useful but also very gradative.

For diplomacy in combat i would say that a good result would at least make the fiend stop and listen, they shall explain why they do it and say that unless they got a lot ut of it they will never give it up, making good alternatives is still on the table, never on the mechanics...

Anyway that is just me, I really love the nohackandslash approach and try to make it worthy, using the rules like they are but making very tight interpretation where they spoil fun.

Anyway anyone knows exactly what is a bluff and a diplomacy check? I mean... you can try to make a diplomacy check when you are actually lying, you make people roll both? one for the possibility of noting the lie and another for the actual negotiation

 

[Mistwell]

Why is it counter-intuitive?

Martin Luther King persuaded 250,000 oppressed people to March on Washington.

Ghandi persuaded thousands to willingly stand in front of a solider and get clubbed into unconsciousness.

Hitler persuaded thousands of usually decent people to murder their neighbors, including children.

Jim Jones persuaded 914 people to kill themselves (and their children) by drinking poisoned koolaid.

What is so counter-intuitive about the idea that words can have a truly powerful impact?

To hit a DC 60 for a Diplomacy check (changing Hostile to Helpful in one round), you are pretty much the most persuasive person on the planet. You have devoted pretty much every feat, every special ability, magic items, spells, and skill ranks to being good at doing that one single thing (and probably only one time a day). You are fairly high level as well. Why do you find it so surprising that a character who dedicates everything to being able to persuade others can actually do that? Why do you find it surprising that, even when speaking to someone who thinks diametrically opposed to the way you are thinking, that it is possible to convince them otherwise?

It happens in real life all the time, and without the aid of magic. Why is it so counter-intuitive that it could happen in this game?

 

[Ran]

Just to note I really don't think it was a hundred people in a round, they are not the most sane type of people and also it would be a lot of bluff too..

Anyway i have realized that it may be a house rule (my approach that is), but also it makes the longer attempt something to roleplay and in case anyone wants to try the on the fly test they will have it full effect, with all give aways necessary and needing to think alternatives to what is being done and the like...

Anyway i would love to know how monte house ruled diplomacy in his games, after all he is somewhat of a father of the edition...

edit: repeating tests also reflect better real world but that would hardly be my point, mechanics hard do and D&D ones are far from it...

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

What is so counter-intuitive about the idea that words can have a truly powerful impact?

I don't think that is counter-intuitive at all, I only argue against the point that Diplomacy is an allmighty "overcome most any challenge with a single roll" skill.

All of your examples were certainly not the result of a single minute of discussion with someone that had their first exposure to the speaker. Many of them were a result of years of effort and specific environmental/cultural factors.

 

[Utrecht]

I tread the differences between Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate as follows:

Bluff - Represents some manner of trickery/innuendo which attempts to advance the Bluffer without giving up anything - it has serious consequences if failed - in effect - the perception that the bluffer lied.

Diplomacy - represents an actual negotiations - a implied back and forth discussion where both parties hope to realize something. I do not feel that there is any lieing inolved (I would rule that you could attempt a bluff check and if successful, it would give positive modifiers to your Diplomacy check) - Failure here means that the discussion/offer held no value to the receipient - and if bad enough - would result in a downgraded attitude.

Intimidate - Trying to gain what you want out of shear force of will/personality. Again, I would allow bluff to modify this one as well.


So examples in combat

Bluff: "I expect that the squad of guards would be here any moment" - if succesful, it would force a tactical change on the part of the opponents - ie. they align themselves to address the new threat, etc. In effect it would cause the bad guys to operate in a less than optimal manner.

Diplomacy: Success - would indicate that hostilities come to a temprary halt - i.e. a white flag while terms are discussed - and based off of these terms, combat could resume.

Intimidate - Again this is would attempt to cease combat - but more of a one shot - I.e. stop attacking me, I will be forced to kill all of you - oh and I will do it slowly......

I then apply modifiers based off of environmental conditions - but tend to favor larger modifiers than +/- 2 in combat - the nature of combat enhances the normal affects of any modifier.....

 

[Pielorinho]

Jim Jones persuaded 914 people to kill themselves (and their children) by drinking poisoned koolaid.

Incidentally, I know a great joke about Jonestown, but the punch line is pretty grim.

Cordo pointed out successfully why your examples don't apply. Diplomacy is a great skill -- but it should only be able to work when you've got something to offer. If you're offering to work for the dragon in exchange for your freedom, that's something legit. If you're offering to spread word of the dragon's fierceness and terrible demeanor, that's worth doing. If you offer to lead the dragon to a great treasure hoard, then you're making a real offer. But batting your eyes real pretty and speaking flowery language won't cut it.

MLK persuaded people to march on Washington because he offered them freedom. Jim Jones offered people paradise (and these were people pre-selected to believe everything he said -- they were people who started off friendly, in other words). Hitler offered people a grotesque vision of a utopia. Ghandi offered people a world of justice and righteousness.

Diplomacy works when you offer people something that they believe they can attain, and that they believe is worth the sacrifice you're asking them to make. Offer them nothing, and it's counter-intuitive for it to work.

Daniel

 

[Utrecht]

I don't think that is counter-intuitive at all, I only argue against the point that Diplomacy is an allmighty "overcome most any challenge with a single roll" skill.

All of your examples were certainly not the result of a single minute of discussion with someone that had their first exposure to the speaker. Many of them were a result of years of effort and specific environmental/cultural factors.

Regarding your second point, I simply see those as modifiers to the diplomacy modifier.

Your first point is a good one - and one that I had not really considered until you and Voadam brought it up. Yes, you are right, this is reducing a challenge down to a single die roll - but D & D is full of them. A single die role can get you by a trap, a single die role lets you swim the river, etc - why should diplomacy be any different.

That being said, if you want it to multi-iterative, then I would suggest breaking the diplomatic encounter into subencounters - while reducing the DC to do it.

I see this type of encounter consisting of the following "rounds"

1) Cessation of Hostilities
2) Opening of Negotiation
3) Active Negotiation
4) Conclusion of Negotiation and Agreement

Again understand that negotiation here could be a variety of things - including - hey if you kill us - who is going to stop the ghoul army on the river - you know enemy of my enemy is a friend and all.

So, next, it is necessary to assign some level of DC to each. Potentially reducing DCs by 5, 10 or 15 - with the reductions getting larger as you navigate through the rounds - the issue with this of course is if the PC is good enough to get hostilities to cease (the hardest activity) they will likely succeed on all the others - in effect using alot of dice rolls to accomplish what one would have done.

 

[Mistwell]

Daniel, I believe you are again assuming your character is the player.

Do you ask your player to describe each sword hit, the method they swing it, where on the target they are aiming, each time they strike at a target?

Do you ask your spell casters to speak a spell, make the hand gestures, and describe the spell effect in detail, each time they case a spell?

No? Is it perhaps because it's their CHARACTER that does this, and not the player?

Your player's do not know what to say in that situation, but their characters do. Their characters have a high charisma, have high ranks, have feat bonuses, and are using magic to make a truly impassioned speech to the target. The Player isn't doint that.

You effectively punish a player who doesn't think as fast as the DM, or who is shy, for choosing to use this skill. Or, put another way, you give a huge bonus to people who make characters that they can make act by saying "I hit the guy on the left with my sword" rather than "I persuade the guy on the left to stop attacking us".

I again say it is fair, and smart, and fun, to role play the situation out. However, you shouldn't punish player's for not being as smart or charismatic or diplomatic as their character is, when using that skill. Just as you don't punish them for not being as strong or healthy or skilled at killing things as their character.

As for Monte's rule, here is what he said on this thread over at the montecook.com boards:

I have a houserule in my own campaign, a D&D/AU hybrid, that says that the DC to influence a creature is modified by +1 per HD or level of the creature, making tougher, more powerful creatures tougher to charm or manipulate. It's not something I'd put in a book (because some people would find it unrealistic), but it does make it desireable to have a high Diplomacy score.

This came about because in my last campaign, I had a very high Cha Paladin who would routinely get Diplomacy roles in the 40s and 50s and I wanted to keep things interesting.

I've also considered giving certain races (like dwarves), Diplomacy and Bluff resistance--it's just harder to manipulate them with words. "Not Easily Swayed" might make a good feat to give NPCs too. Maybe they'd get double their level to Diplomacy DCs.