What can you do with Diplomacy?

[Ran]

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?

Hey I don't ask them to do it but know what happens?? They DO IT!!! Not always, that is certain, but they like to speak a might attack and I usually describe a critial hit and the like...

For spells we like to make a kind of signature on it, not every spell need be the same, a mage casting fireball, for example, could say he is casting and using his dagger to make a circle on mid air, he then blows this circle and it goes: FIREBALL!!

It may be time consuming but greatly imprves the game and makes people visualize the actual casting, also compels people to be creative and entertain themselves...

But it seems a lot of people don't, they don't know how to do it and they leave it aside... I never tried to convince a dragon but even so, I try and DMs have to deal with lots of situation they are not familiar with, where some players may even disagree...

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you cannot make it sound or look good or bad, does it?

 

[Mistwell]

Ran: I totally agree, it is fun to role play even spells and sword strikes. But if the DM doesn't like how well you describe such things, does he/she give you a negative modifier to the sword hit or spell DC check? I doubt it.

Take for example a person who has a masters degree in biology, who has memorized Gray's anatomy, and is a fencing instructor for a living in real life. Would that person get a bonus every time he describes a sword hit in a D&D game? I doubt it. Because that would not be as fun. The description that player gives is fun, but you wouldn't likely benefit that player for their personal knowledge.

Reverse the situation: A player in the same game as the Bio/Fencing ezxpert has no knowledge at all of biology or real life fencing - they just say "I try to hit the creature on the left". Would you give them a negative modifier to hitting and damage? I doubt that as well.

Now me, I have a law certificate in dispute resolution from the 5th best university in the nation for such degrees. I also negotiate for a living. Should I get a bonus to my Diplomacy checks simply because I know persuation techniques better than most, and bring those real life skills into the game when my character uses the Diplomacy skill? I wouldn't think so. Nor should the player that has massive stage fright, and is trained in a field that rarely brings them in contact with others, and is shy and hates speaking in front of a crowd, and stutters, and often takes more time to come up with what they are going to say, be given a negative modifier when their character uses the Diplomacy skill.

The role playing decides what your character does in a general sense. It adds color and fun to the game. It points the character in a direction. But you shouldn't punish or reward the player's use of a skill, or an ability, or a spell, or anything that their character does well simply because the player of that character isn't as good at it as their character would be (as long as they are trying to role play it as best they can, and are not being intentionally lazy about it).

Now, that isn't to say you shouldn't try to encourage good role playing. A minor (MINOR) circumstance modifier to encourage people to play more in character is often useful. But that goes for swordplay, spellcasting, turning checks, jumping, and everything else a player does in a game. It shouldn't be more important to the DM that you role play the Diplomacy skill than every other kind of skill, just because the DM thinks of Diplomacy as a role-playing opportunity rather than the turning check as a role-playing opportunity. EVERYTHING is a role playing opportunity, and if you want to reward players for getting more into character, or punish them for getting lazy, then that is certainly a fair thing to do...for all things they do.

But I don't think it is fair to take it out more on the character who focuses everything into Diplomacy rather than killing things with a weapon or a spell.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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've got no problem with this particular method of operation. Why? Because charm monster still just makes the target monster your best friend. It doesn't make them into a mindless zombie.

Think what you would do for your best friend, and more specifically what you wouldn't do. Think what sort of a character has had the spell/diplomacy check applied to them. Work out the results in a sensible way.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This discussion is becoming less and less about what you can achieve with Diplomacy in a hostile situation, and more and more about various house rules DMs use in their game to vary from the Diplomacy rules.

That's great that you guys have found house rules that satisfy you in your games. It's difficult to come up with good house rules sometimes, and I am genuinely happy you guys have found a way to do it with this skill.

This thread isn't about that. In fact, this forum isn't even about house rules. I'm asking for advice UNDER THE RULES AS WRITTEN for what you can do with a Diplomacy check in a hostile encounter (and perhaps that means this thread should be moved to the Rules thread).

The rules currently state that a DC 25 is sufficient to persuade the dragon that has captured you that it is a good idea to let you go.

PERIOD.

Now perhaps that is errata, and should now read DC 35 (since the DC to change something from Hostile to Friendly used to be DC 25, but was changed in the PHB to be DC 35). But regardless, the rule says a good roll on your Diplomacy check (25 or 35) is sufficient to persuade a hostile, superior target like a dragon to release you from captivity. Not save you for last. Not eat you quickly. But release you.

No, that's not what it says. It says he will consider it a good idea. If I think something is a good idea, then I don't just do it. I consider the other good ideas I've had. I weigh them all up. I pick the one which suits me at the time. Social skills are somewhat 'soft', in that after their application, some modicum of roleplaying is still required. Play the NPC's like they were real, thinking, living beings.

If you disagree with that rule, feel free to change it in your game. But I am really interested in how DMs who use that rule, as it is written, to handle Diplomacy checks in a hostile situation.

I'll admit that I wrote this chart under the AU rules, rather than the new 3.5 PHB rules. However, I think the new rules make Diplomacy MORE powerful, not less, given the new definition of Helpful (see end of this message).

If you hit a DC 60 with a single full round action (which includes the 3.5 -10 modifier to a rushed Diplomacy check), that changes your opponant from Hostile to Helpful, barring unusual circumstace modifiers.

What does it mean to have someone who was Hostile now Helpful? Granted, it doesn't mean they are charmed. But it should mean something. Heck, it should mean A LOT, since DC 60 is incredibly high.

If you ask me, it does mean that they're charmed. Note that that means CHARMED not DOMINATED. They're your best friend.

I never said they will give you all their treasure, strip naked, and walk out of the dungeon singing your praises and doing good deeds for all their live long days. I never said they were a slave, or an automoton, or charmed.

Charmed != slave or automaton
Charmed=best friend.

My best friend wouldn't give me all his possessions, strip naked and dance out of his house singing my praise. Hence a charmed creature wouldn't either.

All I said was they are now helpful towards you. In my opinion, that means they won't attack you or your friends, unless you attack them. It means they might help you with a task (depending on an opposed Diplomacy role for that negotiation). Is that unreasonable? Should you be able to do more, or less, with a Helpful target? How about for the other attitudes?

As I've repeatedly said, it depends. Think how the creature in question treats his best friend. Apply that.

BTW, the new 3.5 PHB says "Helpful" means "Protect, Backup, Heal, Aid".

 

[Ran]

The role playing decides what your character does in a general sense. It adds color and fun to the game. It points the character in a direction. But you shouldn't punish or reward the player's use of a skill, or an ability, or a spell, or anything that their character does well simply because the player of that character isn't as good at it as their character would be (as long as they are trying to role play it as best they can, and are not being intentionally lazy about it).

Now, that isn't to say you shouldn't try to encourage good role playing. A minor (MINOR) circumstance modifier to encourage people to play more in character is often useful. But that goes for swordplay, spellcasting, turning checks, jumping, and everything else a player does in a game. It shouldn't be more important to the DM that you role play the Diplomacy skill than every other kind of skill, just because the DM thinks of Diplomacy as a role-playing opportunity rather than the turning check as a role-playing opportunity. EVERYTHING is a role playing opportunity, and if you want to reward players for getting more into character, or punish them for getting lazy, then that is certainly a fair thing to do...for all things they do.

But I don't think it is fair to take it out more on the character who focuses everything into Diplomacy rather than killing things with a weapon or a spell.

Well I see you totally got my point and have very good points yourself...

Anyway I do give them a compensation for all those roleplaying but in another way: Xp.

The main reason that i claim players to roleplay speeches or the like is for fun but also because i think those that are shy or feel nervous in public need also try to oevrcome those difficulties and so i see their limitations and give modifiers based on them...

In most cases people tend to get a in-game benefit that would otherwise not be gained as such a character of mine with a friend dming (one that mostly agrees with my point) was trying to inspire troops to go on a journey to the enemy's lair, i made a truly inspiring speech 9it truly made me want to be as good in real life when it comes to working and college), then i rolled, man my roll was almost useless but since my speech made everyone be amazed on the table my character got some attention, like a part of the troops actually being inspired...

I think that after players are used to roleplaying at every opportunity (those that are convenient and fun) you don't have to bother with those modifiers but my experience says most people who play D&D around here has a great tendency towards powerpaying and hack&slash, that is my way of saying they gotta learn other ways...

And for that matter I think in-characetr speech is not really mandatoy you can speak what your point will be and it would be just as good, with whtever problem you may have it would make through and in game there will be no accent or gaga...

Anyway I got your point and believe it is strong... so strong that I am considering about just keeping roleplaying xp...

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

Another thought on Mistwell's point that making a player RP anything out at all, and factoring that into the roll in any means whatsoever is unfair...

I think we have to remember this is a game. And as part of the game it's reasonable to expect people to do certain things.

One parallel example would be combat tactics. Many, many people don't "roleplay" their characters correctly on the battlefield. They are either too smart (6 INT 8 WIS orc barbarian making brilliant tactical decisions) or they are too stupid (18 INT wizard who can't figure out what the best spell to use as they are a relatively new player). Unless you are completely going to take away the "game" aspect and change it to a simulation, you have to leave some of that in the hands of the players.

So yes it is arguably unfair to make a shy person play out a diplomatic encounter... But isn't that similar to it not being fair that some players are much better at combat tactics, be that through experience or intelligence?

My argument is simply that it isn't *fun* to reduce it all to a single die roll with no role-playing.

That isn't to say that a high diplomacy shouldn't be extremely useful, I agree that it should. I just don't think it should be the answer to 90% of the game's challenges which such a "by-the-numbers" allow. Monte's house rule seems to indicate a similar feeling on his part, as modifying the DC by hit die can lead to some pretty high DCs, especially at high levels.

 

[Mistwell]

Another thought on Mistwell's point that making a player RP anything out at all, and factoring that into the roll in any means whatsoever is unfair...

I think we have to remember this is a game. And as part of the game it's reasonable to expect people to do certain things.

One parallel example would be combat tactics. Many, many people don't "roleplay" their characters correctly on the battlefield. They are either too smart (6 INT 8 WIS orc barbarian making brilliant tactical decisions) or they are too stupid (18 INT wizard who can't figure out what the best spell to use as they are a relatively new player). Unless you are completely going to take away the "game" aspect and change it to a simulation, you have to leave some of that in the hands of the players.

So yes it is arguably unfair to make a shy person play out a diplomatic encounter... But isn't that similar to it not being fair that some players are much better at combat tactics, be that through experience or intelligence?

My argument is simply that it isn't *fun* to reduce it all to a single die roll with no role-playing.

That isn't to say that a high diplomacy shouldn't be extremely useful, I agree that it should. I just don't think it should be the answer to 90% of the game's challenges which such a "by-the-numbers" allow. Monte's house rule seems to indicate a similar feeling on his part, as modifying the DC by hit die can lead to some pretty high DCs, especially at high levels.

I think you can get all the benefits of role playing out the situation while also having the results be determined by a die roll.

The DM secretly rolls for both the character and, if it is an opposed check, the NPC, before the discussion begins. The DM now knows what the result of this diplomatic encounter will be...but the player does not. So you role play it out. All the "fun" is still there. The player doesn't know if they are going to change the targets mind, and if they do, by how much. Does this really decrease the level of fun?

 

[S'mon]

Why is it not desireable???? (I agree under the current system it is inevitable) As Merova states - skill points and Feats are in effect currency that we build our characters from - thereby setting the relative costs of all abilities of characters.

Thus, if Diplomacy is ony 25% as usefull as Tumble - then it should cost 25% less. And it is the "soft" skills that suffer for it - thinks like sense motive, bluff, intimidate - all are watered down compared to the rather hard results of listen, tumble, etc.

The desire of equal cost just makes sense to me - and from your examble - why would I EVER spend points in Diplomacy if I know that Tumble is a much better use of my currency - in the chance that Diplomacy will do me good - well it won't if I am splattered on the floor because I did not invest in the "smart" skill of tumbling.

How desirable a Feat or Skill is will always depend on the circumstances of the particular campaign. I'd expect in a game centred around politics and courtly intrigue Diplomacy would be much more frequently used and more useful than Tumble. That doesn't mean I think that in an intrigue game a PC should get 4 ranks in Tumble for every skill point. Likewise in a dungeon crawl, Tumble may be more useful (unless the DM makes every monster diplomatisable). A typically Rogue can max out around 10 skills so it's not an either-or choice.
There are skills such as Craft and Profession that are clearly less useful to the back-to-the-dungeon game, indeed to almost any game, than are the adventurer skills. What these skills are, is a useful tool for world-building (for DMs) and for integrating PCs into the world (for players).

Personally, if I were designing D&D from the ground up I wouldn't have used a Charisma stat (& its related skills) - or Wisdom, for that matter. The Willpower stat used in many other games (eg Runequest) covers both as used in D&D, and retaining the Wis/Cha legacy to me is more a matter of inertia by the redesigners than a considered choice. They've made it work quite well with the inner will (wis) /outer will (cha) distinction, mind you. I also don't think much of the 3e Bard (really a Minstrel or Entertainer class). The Bard prestige class in Slaine is a far better approach IMO. YMMV.

 

[S'mon]

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?

No, but I'll happily give circumstance modifiers for particular described tactics - some might require a Bluff roll, but I'd give a modifier to that too if the bluff is particularly plausible - eg ogres expect to see people cowering in fear before them, so a rogue PC 'cowering in fear' could easily fool it & get a Sneak attack in. If a longsword-armed PC describes a cool & plausible way to take down their greataxe-wielding opponent I'd also give AC, to-hit & damage bonuses for that action.

 

[S'mon]

I think you can get all the benefits of role playing out the situation while also having the results be determined by a die roll.

The DM secretly rolls for both the character and, if it is an opposed check, the NPC, before the discussion begins. The DM now knows what the result of this diplomatic encounter will be...but the player does not. So you role play it out. All the "fun" is still there. The player doesn't know if they are going to change the targets mind, and if they do, by how much. Does this really decrease the level of fun?

Yes, of course it does. The player's roleplaying becomes an exercise in futility.

Diplomacy in my game - player says what their PC says. If the NPC would obviously agree or disagree, that's it. If it's uncertain, they make a Diplomacy (or Bluff etc) check. Player can also _request_ to make a Diplomacy check at any time they talk to an NPC.

IMC 'charm' is a magical effect that can 'get people to do things they wouldn't normally do' (with CHA check as per rules). Diplomacy is not a magical effect and functions differently; in some ways it can be more powerful, but you have to present a plausible reason why the NPC would _want_ to do something, it's not just 'I cast Diplomacy on him!"

All the Skills in the PHB are left somewhat fuzzy and need a lot more DM adjudication than do the combat or spellcasting rules IMO. That goes for Tumble as much as for Diplomacy - the DM needs to set the DC at a reasonable level with regard to all the circumstances, not just the bare bones guidelines given in the book - Tumbling over 3' kobolds is easier than tumbling over 20' Earth Elementals in my game, whatever the book says. Using Diplomacy on a petty court official is easier than using it on a gold dragon, likewise - a red dragon might be easier since they have some huge personality weaknesses that can be exploited by the clever diplomat.