What can you do with Diplomacy?

[iwatt]

What effect does having your companions around have? Of course you ca have a Cha 18, Diplo +45 half-elf Paladin doing the talking, but theree should be some effect of that same group having a Cha 3 Diplo -4 half-orc whose fondling the kings daughter while chewing with his mouth open.

 

[Pielorinho]

Mistwell, in combat, I ask players to choose which opponent to attack, where they awant to stand, what weapon they want to use, what feats they'll apply to the attack, what special maneuvers (if any) they want to use, whether they want to do a full attack or a single attack, and so on. Someone may be playing a fifteenth-level fighter, but if they choose to use poor tactics in battle, they can botch it up; I might offer them limited advice ("um, you recognize that this dragon is going to be very difficult to hit; are you sure you want to power-attack for your full amount?"), but I'll mostly let them determine how good or poor tactics they want to use.

D&D doesn't model diplomacy with nearly the loving care with which it models combat: instead of a round-by-round system, wherein each participant has a multitude of complex options for diplomacy each turn, D&D offers a single die roll. That's fine for campaigns in which diplomacy is a minor side-issue, but it's very boring for a campaign in which diplomacy is central.

The diplomacy system must be spiced up. I enjoy the roleplaying aspect much more than the dicerolling aspect, so I spice it up in my game by having the player's participation in diplomacy, choice of diplomatic tactics, etc. figure prominently in the outcome of a diplomatic session. A player who chooses an aggressive, cut-to-the-chase approach when dealing with the Queen of Faerie may have a +30 diplomacy check, but he's still made every bit as poor a decision as the fighter who decides to use expertise and defensive fighting against an opponent who can only hit her on a 20 anyways.

If you don't enjoy roleplaying through diplomacy, or if you don't want the pressuree of knowing that how you roleplay through it will actually have any bearing on the outcome of the diplomatic encounter, that's fine for you. I can even see how that kind of game might be fun, on occasion. But I love playing through diplomatic scenes, and I love the pressure of knowing that what I say will afect the outcome of the scene.

Daniel

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, in combat, I ask players to choose which opponent to attack, where they awant to stand, what weapon they want to use, what feats they'll apply to the attack, what special maneuvers (if any) they want to use, whether they want to do a full attack or a single attack, and so on. Someone may be playing a fifteenth-level fighter, but if they choose to use poor tactics in battle, they can botch it up;

Why wouldn't you do that with Diplomacy.

Particularly with Diplomacy in hostile encounters, you need to ask your diplomatic player: 1) where he is standing (to see if the creature is aware of him and can hear him, and how suseptible to attack the diplomacy-user will be if the diplomacy check fails), 2) what language they want to use (because if it is a language the target doesn't understand, it won't work), 3) If they will be using a knowledge skill to try to determine what language the creature speaks, 4) what feats they will apply to the Diplomacy (since all diplomatic-focused characters use feats for this, and often abilities and spells as well), 5) whether they will do a full-round action or a one-minute action (the earlier imposing a -10 penalty), 6) what exactly is their character requesting (that the party be left alone, that the party be permitted to pass, that the party be permitted to loot, that the target help the party with a task, that the target give advice, that the target join them, etc...all of which can impose circumstance modifiers and may require an opposed Diplomacy check), etc...

Honestly, I think all the rules are already there for your diplomacy to be just as exciting and tactical as combat. I think you just are not willing to even given them a try, because you are stuck in the mode of thinking there is something wrong with those rules simply because it sometimes does not involve multiple roles of the dice.

The diplomacy system must be spiced up. I enjoy the roleplaying aspect much more than the dicerolling aspect, so I spice it up in my game by having the player's participation in diplomacy, choice of diplomatic tactics, etc. figure prominently in the outcome of a diplomatic session. A player who chooses an aggressive, cut-to-the-chase approach when dealing with the Queen of Faerie may have a +30 diplomacy check, but he's still made every bit as poor a decision as the fighter who decides to use expertise and defensive fighting against an opponent who can only hit her on a 20 anyways.

But your combat player who chooses poor tactics, but has a +30 attack, will STILL hit despite the poor choice of tactics. Your diplomatic player, according to you, will still miss the diplomacy check despite having a +30 to the skill, because somehow the player's knowledge will override the characters knowledge for the diplomatic situation, and even though the character knows what to say and how to say it (yet your player does not), your player's lack of knowledge will hurt them far more in the diplomatic situation than the combat one (where the combat player knows how to hit still, and still will hit, and still will do the damage, and very well may even crit the target and drop them in one blow, despite having chosen poor tactics).

I really think all you are doing is crafting your rules to the advantage of your naturally more diplomatic PLAYERS, to the disadvantage of your shy and undiplomatic players. You encourage combat tactics for the naturally undiplomatic players. That makes no sense. One of the whole points of this game is the opportunity to play someone you are not. But in your game, you are punished for doing that. If you cannot beat your DM in real world diplomatic skills, you lose. But if you can role the dice well in combat, you will win.

 

[Pielorinho]

If you cannot beat your DM in real world diplomatic skills, you lose. But if you can role the dice well in combat, you will win.

Beat the DM?! What kind of weirdo game do you play in?

It's impossible to beat the DM. It's impossible for the players to beat me. I'm the ref, remember?

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding my point, and I don't understand why you seem to think you know better than me how to have fun in my game. I have, however, made my point quite clear. Ta ta!

Daniel

 

[Mistwell]

Beat the DM?! What kind of weirdo game do you play in?

It's impossible to beat the DM. It's impossible for the players to beat me. I'm the ref, remember?

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding my point, and I don't understand why you seem to think you know better than me how to have fun in my game. I have, however, made my point quite clear. Ta ta!

Daniel

Sorry if I offended you. It was not intentional.

 

[Ran]

Sorry if I offended you. It was not intentional.

I think there was a misundertand here, mistwell didn't really meant to offend he wanted to say that you could use real life negotiation skills (your players try to convincee you) and that would reflect in the game (the character convinces the npc).

My problem with that approach is that some npcs might not give in even though you or I do, as the opposite could happen, some npcs ould give in and I would never...

Anyway I hope this post got the way it shoul be, polite and helpful.

 

[Merova]

Script Immunity

Hi all!

Each character in an rpg will have a purpose, be it simple (ie: eat the PCs) or complex (initiate Plan X to accomplish goal Y then . . .). We'll call this purpose a "script." To model a character's strength at maintaining its script there are various mechanics involved, mainly AC, hit points and saving throws. We'll call these elements "Script immunity."

For a PC to alter an NPC's script, they need to bypass its immunity. So, if a PC wants to hack the NPC to pieces, they'll need to bypass its "passive resist-style" immunity (AC) and deplete its "refresh-style" immunity (hit points). Until the hit points are depleted, the PCs cannot rewrite the script to say "the NPC has been hacked to pieces."

Likewise, if a PC wants to turn an NPC to stone, they'll need to bypass to "active resist-style" immunity (saves). If the NPC has an effective active-resist for this situation, like a high level fighter with a boosted CON, then their immunity will likely rebuff the attempt. However, if the resist fails, then the immunity is bypassed and the PC can rewrite the script declaring that the NPC is now stone.

In terms of combat challenge, D&D is very well written and excellently balanced. The various immunities may be arranged and combined in interesting tactical manners.

However, there is a backdoor to altering script immunity, the social skill set. As written, most NPCs have no defense against social challenges. They can't "armor up," they get no "save progression" and have no ablative/refresh pool to resist such attacks. A medium-level, social powergamer can defuse many a nasty situation with a single die roll, regardless of challenge rating. This is in accordance with the rules as written.

The social challenge structure makes a mockery out of script immunity. Yes, one can say that turning somebody "friendly" is much less powerful than turning them to a snail. However, in game terms, the result is similar; the conflict has been overcome.

Moreover, the actual adjudication of such is overly vague, which is the premise behind this thread. What exactly constitutes "friendly," "indifferent," or "helpful." The handful of words that gets offered as advice is not even close to being enough to make fair adjudications.

Basically, my feelings are that if a diplomacy check results in given result, then the PC gets to rewrite the script in a way that reflects the given result, in accordance with the stated delineation of the task. This rewrite needs to be approved by the GM, of course. Just because you've convinced the Queen to fund your outrageous expedition by rolling a "Helpful" result doesn't mean she's going to sleep with you as well. You'll need to roll another check to get that.

This is all, IMO. YMMV. Thanks for reading

---Merova

 

[jgbrowning]

It's not player knowledge Mistwell, just reality. Here's the problem with using diplomacy as agressively as you suggest....

"Diplomacy involves etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words."

Using diplomacy implies that the PC has knowledge of the above. If the PC has never met a group, or interacted with such, how is a PC going to know etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and have a way with words? Answer: he won't, so diplomacy should be very, very difficult (and more difficult than trying the same thing with a group whose culture he is familiar with)

This is why diplomacy only works in certain situations, unlike combat. The PC already possesses all the knowledge he needs to know about combat because that knowledge is independant of interaction with others. Not totally independant, as unique forms of combat may put the PC off guard, but in the game this is easily realized through increased AC, increased damage capability, whatever....

Diplomacy, as you would like to use it, relies upon tw0 sublimly ridicules base assumptions.

1. The idea that an opponant is forced to listen. Why can't they just scream the entire time, therefore being unable to hear the diplomat's sly words? (ie. total cover vrs. diplomacy.)
2. That PCs with high diplomacy have utter understanding of every single culture's entire breadth of etiquette, tact, and sublety, but they don't know as much when it comes to knowledge checks. Why have knowledge (religion, local, planes, almost anyone) when you have diplomacy. The PC knows that he's supposed to bow to the foreign king (whose kingdom he'd never heard of before) and place his hands on the ground, say the words, "I am your humble scut boy", follow that up with standing on his head and then bellowing, "FOREVER."

This, and your reading of diplomacy as suggested in this thread is patantly ridicules.

If you wish to persist in your reading of diplomacy you should make it diplomacy (elves), diplomacy (dwarves) to balance out the exordinate power you're placing in the skill. Diplomacy as written is only a guideline, to help people decide what could possibly happen, to allow GMs to let player's PC's skills affect the outcome as opposed to just players skills.

joe b.

 

[Norfleet]

I'd expect in a game centred around politics and courtly intrigue Diplomacy would be much more frequently used and more useful than Tumble.

Nonsense. Tumble is absolutely essential in a courtly game, if you happen to be the jester.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not player knowledge Mistwell, just reality. Here's the problem with using diplomacy as agressively as you suggest....

"Diplomacy involves etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words."

Using diplomacy implies that the PC has knowledge of the above. If the PC has never met a group, or interacted with such, how is a PC going to know etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and have a way with words? Answer: he won't, so diplomacy should be very, very difficult (and more difficult than trying the same thing with a group whose culture he is familiar with)

This is why diplomacy only works in certain situations, unlike combat. The PC already possesses all the knowledge he needs to know about combat because that knowledge is independant of interaction with others. Not totally independant, as unique forms of combat may put the PC off guard, but in the game this is easily realized through increased AC, increased damage capability, whatever....

Diplomacy, as you would like to use it, relies upon tw0 sublimly ridicules base assumptions.

1. The idea that an opponant is forced to listen. Why can't they just scream the entire time, therefore being unable to hear the diplomat's sly words? (ie. total cover vrs. diplomacy.)
2. That PCs with high diplomacy have utter understanding of every single culture's entire breadth of etiquette, tact, and sublety, but they don't know as much when it comes to knowledge checks. Why have knowledge (religion, local, planes, almost anyone) when you have diplomacy. The PC knows that he's supposed to bow to the foreign king (whose kingdom he'd never heard of before) and place his hands on the ground, say the words, "I am your humble scut boy", follow that up with standing on his head and then bellowing, "FOREVER."

This, and your reading of diplomacy as suggested in this thread is patantly ridicules.

If you wish to persist in your reading of diplomacy you should make it diplomacy (elves), diplomacy (dwarves) to balance out the exordinate power you're placing in the skill. Diplomacy as written is only a guideline, to help people decide what could possibly happen, to allow GMs to let player's PC's skills affect the outcome as opposed to just players skills.

joe b.

Joe, it isn't "my" reading of this skill.

Once again, the DMG is specific. A DC 25 diplomacy check is sufficient to persuade the Dragon that has captured you that it is a good idea to let you go.

You can dislike that all you want. You can house rule that all you want. But your implication that I am being patently ridiculous for simply following a rule which nobody has ever complained about or called broken (that I am aware of) is itself patently ridiculous.

Yes, the character with the high diplomacy skill knows things about opponants. It's right there in the description of the skill. If you want to house rule it to combine it with knowledge skills, that's fair.

It's a verbal, language dependant skill useable only on oppoants with an intelligence score. If, in your game, your opponants hold their hands over their ears and scream lalalalalala loudly every time someone comes in the room, then that's your game (usual thought it might be). The same would go for the many language-dependant spells in your game I assume, such as command?

I think you were a bit agressive in your response, and I'm not sure why. You seem to think this is abusive, rather than just clarifying the skill. Why do you think it is more abusive than combat or spell tactics?