Which Diplomacy Rule Do You Use (if any)?

[James McMurray]

Core rules straight from the SRD. Diplomacy is nice, but I've never seen it break games (at least not until epic levels, where you can use it to make slaves).

 

[TarionzCousin]

Core rules straight from the SRD. Diplomacy is nice, but I've never seen it break games (at least not until epic levels, where you can use it to make slaves).

I get an amusing visual image from this: uber-slavemasters of the universe are the nicest, most likeable people you'll ever meet.

 

[3d6]

I use my own house rules, where Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate are replaced by a single skill called Convince.[sblock]CONVINCE (CHA)
Check: Convince is used to persuade a creature to do something or to feint in combat.

Persuade: You can use a Convince check (DC 15 + target’s level + target’s Charisma) to persuade a creature to do something or behave in a certain way. This usage of Convince is heavily modified by circumstance.

Example Circumstances
The target is already receptive to the action. (+5)
The target is indifferent to the action. (+0)
The target is opposed to the action. (–5)
The target is strongly opposed to the action. (–10)
The action is almost too incredible to consider. (–20)

Feint: Make a Convince check (DC 10 + target’s level + target’s Wisdom) as a move action. If you succeed, your target is flat-footed against your attacks for 1 round.

Action: Persuading a creature can take a substantial amount of time, and always takes at least a full-round action.[/sblock]

 

[el-remmen]

Burlew's with elements of AGoT.

So I chose "Other".

 

[el-remmen]

Also, this seems like a General topic. . .

and so. . .

 

[DungeonMaester]

Ive used Rich's Variant before he ever published/wrote out his rule. My house rule as always been Role play First, roll second.

---Rusty

 

[Voadam]

Ad hoc based on IC rp, characterization as developed by the PC, an eyeball at skill points and charisma, and considering other situational factors that might be relevant and then either use that as a basis for roleplaying the situation or to adjudicate when somebody says in third person "I do x".

I prefer to think about character interaction rather than numbers for social situations and I prefer roleplay that feels right to me rather than what fits the numbers on the sheet and dice.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Ive used Rich's Variant before he ever published/wrote out his rule. My house rule as always been Role play First, roll second.

---Rusty

What do you do if you have a player that may be new to roleplaying, or is not good at debating, but wants to play a character that is Diplomatic?

Possible ways I can see people playing Diplomacy:

ROLEPLAYING
1) The PCs can say whatever they want, however they want, but the DM already has the NPC's mind made up already, so no matter what the PCs really say, it is not going to change anything. This is obviously story-driven and the die don't really influence anything (Diplomacy-wise). To this I ask, why even have a Diplomacy skill at all?
2) The PCs can say whatever they want, however they want, the DM may have a good idea of what he wants the NPC to do (or he may be undecided), and good roleplaying/debating might just persuade the DM/NPC one way or another. Same as above, if it is solely roleplaying that wins the arguement, why have a Diplomacy skill?
The above also makes it very hard for someone new to role-playing or not good at debating play a Diplomatic character.

ROLL-PLAYING
Let's assume the PC is not a very good wordsmith (IRL), so he convey's his intentions to the DM and let's the skill check and die roll make the outcome. Results:
1) The DM plays the dice how they land, and adjusts the NPC's attitudes accordingly.
2) The DM already has the NPC's mind made up, and no matter how the dice turn up, it is not going to change anything. To this I ask again, why even have a Diplomacy skill?
3) The DM is uncertain how he wants the NPC to react, and will take the die roll into consideration. He still has final say when it comes down to it, and can effectively "veto" the result (not that the PCs would know this). --- This is basically how my group plays.

 

[Michael_R_Proteau]

I like to encourage roleplaying, so I have the players role play some or most of it out. In the course of role playing I have them roll heir diplomacy or bluff checks and apply a circumstance modifier or +4 to -4 based on how they are role playing it out. This still gives them a good chance ot succeed if they take a lot of ranks in diplomacy or bluff, but alos rewards them for good roleplaying as well. Plus my playrs really enjoy the NPC interactions, so I make sure it is a feature when it occurs. If my group wanted ot get through the interactions to get to the combat/action quicker, then I would simply use straight dice rolls to resolve things and move through it quickly. So, I use the method that best suits the group I am playing with.

-M

 

[Frostmarrow]

I let the players chose a social skill and roll it. The player with the best result becomes faceman for the encounter and is obliged to roleplay in accordance to his choice of skill. I.e. If you intimidate you need to threaten the NPC in someway. Perform is allowed too. If the result was NPC's HD+10 or more the NPC will act inferior to the PC otherwise the NPC will act superior.