When Diplomacy Isn't Working

[Fauchard1520]

When you find that diplomacy doesn't seem to be working, how do you move the scene along? When do you know it's time to ditch the talky bits and move on to violence? Is it the player's job to try a different tactic or the GM's to say "you get the sense that these NPCs won't change their minds?"

Comic for illustrative purposes.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

With some PCs, the danger is the opposite, with them resorting to violence instead of diplomacy!

In any situation, I think it’s important to have an idea of what happens if the PCs fail that check. What happens if they can’t get the aid of the duke? Perhaps the councilor wants to meet with them privately, and will help them…if they advance that person’s agenda. Or perhaps they end up with a new enemy.

What bugs me as a DM is when PCs start dogpiling on a crucial check after someone fails it. Then it’s just a probability game until someone rolls high enough. When that sort of thing start to happen, sometimes that first failure is it, and they consequences are set in motion, or I will limit it to people that actually have proficiency with the applicable skill, or tell them that we’ll have to follow the rules for group checks.

 

[Fauchard1520]

What bugs me as a DM is when PCs start dogpiling on a crucial check after someone fails it.

I think my problem was the opposite. The situation I had in mind when I wrote the comic involved a werewolf and a "redeem the wicked" paladin. Dude just talked the werewolf to death, but he never asked to make a check. As the GM, I was into RPing the scene and never thought to say, "Go ahead and give me a check." Dude basically kept talking until he said the exact wrong thing, prompting a werewolf attack without a chance at rolling for diplomacy.

Something went wrong in that scenario, and I think a lot of it was on me. Still, I'm interested in this idea of "when should the player ask for a check vs. the GM?"

 

[Sunseeker]

Both. The DM needs to communicate when an NPC is just unmovable, or a party's specific diplomatic approach is doomed to failure. The party likewise needs to be in general agreement about what course to take should diplomacy fail. I try to give my "important NPCs" 3 traits, to give the players multiple approaches. Violence may cut down the NPC in front of them, but it may not resolve the situation.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Heh, I have experienced that same endless talking! There are so many variables, but I think that much of depends on time and the other people at the table. I definitely will call for a persuasion check sooner on my 2 hour group than my 4 hour group. How much do we still have to get through for the adventure? How important is this conversation? Also, it depends on whether other people at the group are into it, or their eyes are all starting to glaze over.

It goes back to making sure no one PC is overstaying their time in the spotlight. Which, with some of the extra-talky players, can be a problem, just like the other side where some players get restless if they’ve gone five minutes without making an attack roll.

Also, I somehow didn’t realize you were also making the comics. Very cool!

I think my problem was the opposite. The situation I had in mind when I wrote the comic involved a werewolf and a "redeem the wicked" paladin. Dude just talked the werewolf to death, but he never asked to make a check.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think it depends.
The first question is of course whether the RPG system you're using actually has something equivalent to a Diplomacy skill.
The second and maybe more important question is: Do you, the GM want to allow the players to succeed with a diplomatic approach?

If the system features a 'Diplomacy' skill, the players want to use it and I consider it possible that they may succeed, I will ask them how they're trying to convince the NPC.
They can either paraphrase or tell me in-character. Then I'll decide on the difficulty of the check and ask them to roll.
The NPC's reaction will depend on the outcome of the check, and I'll reply to them in-character.
If the skill check was a (normal) failure, they're free to have another try, but they need to come up with a different tack.

In D&D 4e there's the covenient framework of a skill challenge to resolve more involved diplomatic encounters.

It gets trickier in systems without mechanics to resolve a diplomatic encounter - or if you decide you want to resolve it by pure roleplaying.
In that case you have to trust your gut feeling and decide when it's enough. Often you'll notice that all but one player is loing interest in the encounter.
Then it's clearly time to wrap-up and tell them they should either give up or roll initiative.

As an interesting aside, just yesterday I first read about Robin D. Laws 'DramaSystem'. I think the following is somewhat relevant to this discussion:

Dramatic exchanges sometimes arise spontaneously in the course of a traditional roleplaying game, often between player characters. What usually happens, assuming any resistance whatsoever on the part of the granter, is that the granter digs in. Both parties reiterate their positions, stalemate ensues, and the entire lengthy interaction fails to move the story in a new direction.

This happens because, unlike dramatic stories or real life, the granter has no incentive to ever give in. We have trained ourselves to think of good roleplaying as remaining true to a particular, quite fixed conception of our characters. Unexamined oral tradition tells us that it is laudable to remain static, uncompromising, even generally oppositional. Further, we have no incentive to give in. We play our characters without the emotional ties and obligations that cause us to reluctantly grant petitions in life.

(Source)

 

[Dioltach]

Reminds me of the very second episode of Darths and Droids.

 

[Fauchard1520]

As an interesting aside, just yesterday I first read about Robin D. Laws 'DramaSystem'. I think the following is somewhat relevant to this discussion:

Hey, I was just talking to that guy the other day! Seriously need to read more of him.

GJ on bringing this quote into play, because I think it's at the heart of the problem here. It's one of the points of tension between game and story: how do we represent interesting characters when their success or failure is tied up with the idea of winning and losing? It's the goal of a game to win, but it isn't a characteristic of good story for the hero to always succeed. I suppose that systems like FATE help to resolve the conflict: you accept your failure, have to deal with the consequences, but you then get the in-game currency that is "fate points" to help you on later rolls.

 

[Shasarak]

In D&D 4e there's the covenient framework of a skill challenge to resolve more involved diplomatic encounters.

Well that is just a trigger to go ahead and stab the NPC right there. I still remember the last time the DM tried to do a diplomatic skill challenge. :nonono:

 

[practicalm]

Well when I run a game I try to set what a reasonable exchange of services might look like. (i.e. What does the NPC need that the players can supply [quest runs, magic items, solutions to their own diplomatic problems, and/or other services). It becomes a negotiation of who wants to pay what. And it can turn into a set of interlocking tasks where to get A to help you have to go get help from B who needs something from C, but C doesn't want you to help A and so on).

In practice my players can be relied on to insult the NPC or make some gaff that make the cost much higher than they want to pay. But there will also be some way to repair if they can find it or sometimes they just go at it with swords.
They are finding though that nobles get pretty well protected and some fights are not winnable and to win might be to escape with their lives.

Yet my players have frequently dug in deep for creative solutions without fighting. The players like fighting they just have learned to pick their battles more carefully.