PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] An attempt at a simple Diplomacy fix.



Myou
2009-02-14, 10:32 AM
My DM and I agree that we need to fix the Diplomacy rules, but we'd prefer to just throw the rules away and roleplay Diplomacy freely than have long, overly complex rules that get in the way of gameplay.

So here are the rules I came up with to try to create simple diplomacy rules that will work without being overly powerful.

The idea I focused on is that being wise and intelligent would make someone harder to bend to your will and that a more powerful subect will be harder to influence, which makes Diplomacy less of a 'catch-all' ability, and more something good against certain subjects but bad against others.

Please be bear in mind that I've only be playing a few weeks. ^^;


Diplomacy Fix;

Using this variant, Diplomacy checks are rolled against DCs as listed below and items cannot alter your diplomacy bonus. A subject must hear and understand your words for you to make a diplomacy check, thus you cannot normally make a check if the subject is enraged, deafened, or unable to understand speech. A diplomacy check takes ten minutes. You can attempt a diplomacy check as a full-round action at a -10 penalty. If you beat a check by 10 or more you may may attempt another check to improve the subject's attitude again (and may keep doing so each time you beat the DC by ten or more). If you fail a check by more than ten the subject's attitude worsens by one step. If the check succeeds the suject's attitude improves by one step. If you succeed or fail by less that ten, choose not to make further checks to try to improve the subject's attitude, or have improved the subject's attitude as far as possible then no further checks can be attempted for 24 hours.

{table=head]Initial Attitude | Diplomacy DC to improve attitude one stage
Hostile | Hit Dice + (3 x (Wisdom modifier + Intelligence modifier + Circumstance bonuses)) + 10
Unfriendly | Hit Dice + (2 x (Wisdom modifier + Intelligence modifier + Circumstance bonuses)) + 10
Indifferent | Hit Dice + (1 x (Wisdom modifier + Intelligence modifier + Circumstance bonuses)) + 10
Friendly | Hit Dice + (2 x (Wisdom modifier + Intelligence modifier + Circumstance bonuses)) + 10
Helpful | Hit Dice + (3 x (Wisdom modifier + Intelligence modifier + Circumstance bonuses)) + 10
Fanatical | n/a[/table]

Istari
2009-02-14, 11:28 AM
Rich made a nice fix here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) if you want to try that

Nohwl
2009-02-14, 11:28 AM
what if the modifiers are negative?

it takes an hour? what if youre just trying to haggle for a better price? thats not going to take nearly an hour.

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-02-14, 12:00 PM
I'm also not sure I understand why its easier to move someone who's indifferent to you to Friendly than it is to move them from Friendly to Helpful. The difference of 2x can be pretty large.

I really like Rich's fix and wish I'd found it before starting my most recent campaign so I could have my players do it that way. However, i do like the idea of using CR rather than Level to determine the DC. Does allow you to try Diplomacy against monsters that don't strictly have a "level." I'd suggest that possibly HD is an alternative to consider; after all, pretty much everything you can talk to has HD, and it scales significantly as opponents get harder (fulfilling your suggestion that tougher opponents are harder to convert). I'm also not sure why items can't improve your Diplomacy modifier. After all, this is a magical setting; you have items that can turn you into a Manta Ray, improve your ability to hide, sneak, or heal people. You even have items that improve your Charisma bonus, which improves your Diplomacy by extension. It seems like it would be more complicated to have to calculate a new Cha bonus just for Diplomacy when you can Bluff or Intimidate just as well with your fully-modified Cha.

-JM

Myou
2009-02-14, 01:03 PM
Rich made a nice fix here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) if you want to try that

Yes, but that one was more complex than we wanted, and had a few issues with powerful characters refusing you things even though they like you. And the fix I saw for that was even more complicated. I saw a good analysis of Rich's version that pointed out a few problems with it and fixed them. With a block of text and tables so big that it made my eyes water.


what if the modifiers are negative?

it takes an hour? what if youre just trying to haggle for a better price? thats not going to take nearly an hour.

Negative modifiers make a subject more susceptible. If a subject is nether wise nor smart then they'll be easier to influence.

Hmmm, that's true, but haggling isn't diplomacy. You might be able to get a better price if the guy likes you, but the haggling itself is just a buisness deal.


I'm also not sure I understand why its easier to move someone who's indifferent to you to Friendly than it is to move them from Friendly to Helpful. The difference of 2x can be pretty large.

Well it's harder to make someone willing to risk their life fightig for you than to make them think you're an ok guy. It's based both on what the NPC is giving you, and trying to make it harder to make powerful people love you so much that they gives you armies and wizards on-call.


I really like Rich's fix and wish I'd found it before starting my most recent campaign so I could have my players do it that way. However, i do like the idea of using CR rather than Level to determine the DC. Does allow you to try Diplomacy against monsters that don't strictly have a "level." I'd suggest that possibly HD is an alternative to consider; after all, pretty much everything you can talk to has HD, and it scales significantly as opponents get harder (fulfilling your suggestion that tougher opponents are harder to convert). I'm also not sure why items can't improve your Diplomacy modifier. After all, this is a magical setting; you have items that can turn you into a Manta Ray, improve your ability to hide, sneak, or heal people. You even have items that improve your Charisma bonus, which improves your Diplomacy by extension. It seems like it would be more complicated to have to calculate a new Cha bonus just for Diplomacy when you can Bluff or Intimidate just as well with your fully-modified Cha.

-JM

Ah, ye, HD is better than CR, good idea. :3

I'll change that now.

Thing thing with items is that when a character can double their diplomacy with a single item it makes it nearly impossible to stop that breaking the skill without making it a requirement for the skill to work at all. Banning diplomacy items isn't ideal, but I just can't think of any other way to account for the guy who spends all his wealth boosting Diplomacy.

Boosting Cha is allowed (because it costs vaslty more and thus doesn't break Diplomacy so easily). It's items that boost the specific skill, not your ability scores, that are barred.

Nohwl
2009-02-14, 01:05 PM
haggling isnt a skill. i would put it under diplomacy.

Myou
2009-02-14, 01:15 PM
haggling isnt a skill. i would put it under diplomacy.

It's not part of the normal mechanic though, the Diplomacy skill is normally about changing people's attitudes to you, using it for specific tasks other than that is making it more complicated, and it's just up to the DM what reduction you get, so why not ust RP the haggling and let him tell you how it goes to begin with?

You can't have high-Diplomacy characters getting all their stuff half-price.

If you really want to roll for haggling then Rich's system is good for that, but my DM and I don't even apply Diplomacy to haggling so it's not an issue for us, the DM just sets the price and if we want to haggle he might reduce the price as a reward for good roleplaying during the haggling scene.

Eldariel
2009-02-14, 03:15 PM
C. Adv places haggling under Diplomacy.

Myou
2009-02-14, 03:43 PM
C. Adv places haggling under Diplomacy.

Huh, so it does, I didn't know that.

Well, my DM hasn't been using that rule, but I think perhaps te minutes isn't unreasonable for diplomacy, that would makre more sense if you used it with haggling.


Anyway, I'm still looking for advice on the main functioning of my method, is it good? Overpowered? Impossible to pull off?

Avor
2009-02-14, 04:24 PM
With diplomacy, I threw the rules out, otherwise any maxed out diplomacy a score, you can avoid every combat enounter.

When I DM, it's used more as a "how convinceing were you". Then the PC has to accualy argue their point. They have to come up with a reason, not just say they "use diplomacy".

Myou
2009-02-14, 04:30 PM
With diplomacy, I threw the rules out, otherwise any maxed out diplomacy a score, you can avoid every combat enounter.

When I DM, it's used more as a "how convinceing were you". Then the PC has to accualy argue their point. They have to come up with a reason, not just say they "use diplomacy".

This is just what we want to avoid, because it effectively removes the Diplomacy skill from the game, whereas we want to try to fix the skill to make it relatively balanced.

As I see it, roleplaying should be a requirement to use Diplomacy, not a replacement for it. Some people are persuasive and talented at such roleplaying, others are not, but in-game successes should depend on character abilities not player abilities, otherwise socially awkward players are penalised even if their character has a +10 Cha modifier, and socially talented players with negative Cha maodifiers can talk down a Balor.

Narmoth
2009-02-14, 04:39 PM
A related question: how good is a natural 20 on a diplomacy check?
Also, how good is it combined in a 15 in diplomacy and 15 in intimidate?

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-14, 05:05 PM
Yes, but that one was more complex than we wanted, and had a few issues with powerful characters refusing you things even though they like you. And the fix I saw for that was even more complicated. I saw a good analysis of Rich's version that pointed out a few problems with it and fixed them. With a block of text and tables so big that it made my eyes water.
It's honestly not that complicated. It basically says that you adjust DC up or down based on your relationship and the nature of the deal you're offering to a target. The base DC starts higher based on the targets wisdom and elvel.

It follows the logic that this is a "trade" but not merely bartering. You can offer up abstract goods such as "doing the right thing" to more concrete things like a bribe

Secondly, it's only to propose a trade or course of action where a character normally wouldn't otherwise perform. So it doesn't matter that powerful characters are harder to drive bargains with. If the powerful character wants to give you something or help you beforehand, bargaining for those goods or services is a rather pointless exercise.

If the Bigwig High-Level Paladin wants to help you clear out a local infestation of undead, he's already decided to help you out without needing any further convincing.

However, if you want to convince him to adventure with you on a long-term basis, than that requires a Diplomacy check. Maybe the DC is adjusted down because he considers you to be a friend. Likely, it'll be adjusted upwards because he has Better Things to Do, since what you're offering in return isn't nearly as appealing to him.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-02-14, 05:09 PM
My DM and I agree that we need to fix the Diplomacy rules, but we'd prefer to just throw the rules away and roleplay Diplomacy freely than have long, overly complex rules that get in the way of gameplay.

So here are the rules I came up with to try to create simple diplomacy rules that will work without being overly powerful.

The idea I focused on is that being wise and intelligent would make someone harder to bend to your will and that a more powerful subect will be harder to influence, which makes Diplomacy less of a 'catch-all' ability, and more something good against certain subjects but bad against others.

...snip...

This looks like a good solution... It makes low level characters with poor mental stats easier to influence, which I like, while higher level folk with big mental stats will be very tricky.

You're still going to run into the problem of soldiers under orders being easy to persuade to disobey orders, and the like.
I've posted a fix that I'm working on in the Homebrew section (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104751) - to summarise the idea that you could borrow if you like: diplomacy is used to affect an NPC's attitude to a course of action.
This allows for the guards not wanting to hurt you (cause they think you're a nice bloke), but wanting to carry out their duty in preventing you from entering the palace, and for a person to really rather like you, but totally disagree with you on something, to the point of being prepared to wage war (there are examples of this in the civil wars of the US and UK), or for someone to utterly despise your general behaviour and actions but concede that you have a point about the unjust imprisoning of peasants.

I think I'll steal your HD / Level / mental stat scaling idea to add into my house rule, if I may be so bold.

Avor
2009-02-14, 05:13 PM
This is just what we want to avoid, because it effectively removes the Diplomacy skill from the game, whereas we want to try to fix the skill to make it relatively balanced.

As I see it, roleplaying should be a requirement to use Diplomacy, not a replacement for it. Some people are persuasive and talented at such roleplaying, others are not, but in-game successes should depend on character abilities not player abilities, otherwise socially awkward players are penalised even if their character has a +10 Cha modifier, and socially talented players with negative Cha maodifiers can talk down a Balor.

No, what I mean is this example

The party is ambushed by bandits, but some of their cloths are that of a old kingdom's army.

I purpose this.

"I see that they were once soldiers, I will try to convince them to act in a way that honours their old kingdom, to protect people, not prey on them. That for money they should apply to be town gaurds or caravan guards *roll dice*

As opposed to this

"eek, bandits *roll for diplomacy*

Myou
2009-02-14, 05:29 PM
A related question: how good is a natural 20 on a diplomacy check?
Also, how good is it combined in a 15 in diplomacy and 15 in intimidate?

There's no 'critical' success if that's what you mean, I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. ^^;


It's honestly not that complicated. It basically says that you adjust DC up or down based on your relationship and the nature of the deal you're offering to a target. The base DC starts higher based on the targets wisdom and elvel.

It follows the logic that this is a "trade" but not merely bartering. You can offer up abstract goods such as "doing the right thing" to more concrete things like a bribe

Secondly, it's only to propose a trade or course of action where a character normally wouldn't otherwise perform. So it doesn't matter that powerful characters are harder to drive bargains with. If the powerful character wants to give you something or help you beforehand, bargaining for those goods or services is a rather pointless exercise.

If the Bigwig High-Level Paladin wants to help you clear out a local infestation of undead, he's already decided to help you out without needing any further convincing.

However, if you want to convince him to adventure with you on a long-term basis, than that requires a Diplomacy check. Maybe the DC is adjusted down because he considers you to be a friend. Likely, it'll be adjusted upwards because he has Better Things to Do, since what you're offering in return isn't nearly as appealing to him.

In response I'll quote an eloquent explanation of the flaw with Rich's system, since it saves me typing the same sort of thing myself but in a less persuasive way;


It looks like a nice, simple solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

To demonstrate the problem, let's take an extreme example: A little kid asks his grandmother for a cookie. His grandmother is an 11th level cleric with a Wisdom of 20. The DC of the check?

15 (base) + 11 (HD) + 5 (Wisdom) - 10 (relationship) = 21

Good luck, kid. It looks like you've got the worst grandmother ever.

As another example, let's say that I walk up to someone and offer to trade them my very nice castle for a piece of string they're carrying. There are absolutely no strings attached to this deal (ho ho) -- the castle isn't haunted, I don't know that the string is a magical artifact of incredible power, etc.

For some reason, the wiser and more powerful the character I'm talking to is, the less likely I am to convince them to take this stellar deal I'm offering.

Or, as another way of putting it: If Zeus were a pauper, he'd refuse all acts of charity.

In discussing this with various people I've heard a couple of defenses of this shortcoming:

DEFENSE 1: "No DM is going to bother rolling to see if a grandmother gives her grandkid a cookie."

That sounds familiar doesn't it? Yup. It's the exact same defense we heard for the original Diplomacy rules. And it's still an example of the Rule 0 Fallacy: "This rule isn't broken because I can fix it (by ignoring it)."

DEFENSE 2: "The rule is designed so that you only need to make the check if they wouldn't normally accept the offer."

The problem with this defense is that Burlew doesn't agree with it. To quote from his article: "I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. [...] In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

And I agree with Burlew. One of the strengths of 3rd Edition is that the rules for skills make sense. It is a robust system that constantly feeds you valuable information. Yes, there are situations so simplistic that you don't need to bother rolling the dice. And the system is so robust that it actually tells you when that's true (by way of the take 10 mechanics).

(As a tangential note, this is a nifty bonus feature of the take 10 mechanics. Most RPGs tell you to "only roll the dice when it's important", by which they usually mean "don't bother rolling the dice to see if someone can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time". But what would someone with the power of a minor demigod, like a high level PC, consider to be as easy as walking and chewing bubblegum at the same time? The take 10 mechanics tell you that.)

In any case, if I just wanted to make a decision unilaterally, I would just make the decision unilaterally. I don't need rules for that. What I do want is to be able to rely on the rules whenever I choose to rely on the rules. And, when I do that, I want the rules to give me sensible feedback, not nonsense that I have to rule 0.

So I'm trying to make a system that doesn't have such issues, and I'd love feedback on whether I've succeeded, Rich's method is good but as I've already said, not what I want.


This looks like a good solution... It makes low level characters with poor mental stats easier to influence, which I like, while higher level folk with big mental stats will be very tricky.

You're still going to run into the problem of soldiers under orders being easy to persuade to disobey orders, and the like.
I've posted a fix that I'm working on in the Homebrew section (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104751) - to summarise the idea that you could borrow if you like: diplomacy is used to affect an NPC's attitude to a course of action.
This allows for the guards not wanting to hurt you (cause they think you're a nice bloke), but wanting to carry out their duty in preventing you from entering the palace, and for a person to really rather like you, but totally disagree with you on something, to the point of being prepared to wage war (there are examples of this in the civil wars of the US and UK), or for someone to utterly despise your general behaviour and actions but concede that you have a point about the unjust imprisoning of peasants.

I think I'll steal your HD / Level / mental stat scaling idea to add into my house rule, if I may be so bold.

Why thank you. :3
Go right ahead (crediting me would be much appreciated, by my ego at least, but not required.) ^^

I like the idea you have, but weak minded soldiers would be easy to sway if you were charismatic enough, so I'm happy with a character making them prepared to disobey orders to let him go. Especially if he has to make them helpful to do it (they risk severe puishment for disobeying orders).

But I do like the idea or persuading subjects to follow courses of action, it's more specific, without having the complexity of Rich's method, since you can still use the current categories of attitude without loads of modifiers.

I'll wait and see what others think.

Myou
2009-02-14, 05:33 PM
No, what I mean is this example

The party is ambushed by bandits, but some of their cloths are that of a old kingdom's army.

I purpose this.

"I see that they were once soldiers, I will try to convince them to act in a way that honours their old kingdom, to protect people, not prey on them. That for money they should apply to be town gaurds or caravan guards *roll dice*

As opposed to this

"eek, bandits *roll for diplomacy*

That's a good requirement then, but doesn't solve the problem I'm trying to address, stopping the guy who maxes out diplomacy, gets synergy bonuses and has Cha as his primary stat from breaking the game, without making anything less useless.

Jack_Simth
2009-02-15, 01:49 PM
You want a simple diplomacy fix?

1) It changes attitude, not actions.
2) Get rid of the "Fanatical" entry.

What do I mean by 1?
Well, suppose for a moment you're in prison, and you successfully Diplomance the gaurd to "friendly". If he's...

Lawful-Good: He'll be reasonably convinced you didn't do it, give you pillows, blankets, good food, et cetera, and help argue your case with his lord (Aid Another on a diplomacy check, or running the Diplomacy check with a circumstance bonus if he's got the best Diplomancy modifier). He's good (helping you - getting you off to the best of his ability, and laying his reputation on the line in doing so), and Lawful (Obeying his leige and fulfilling his duty), and he's being Helpful from his standpoint.

Chaotic-Good (What's a chaotic person doing guarding a prison? Oh well...): He'll be reasonably convinced you didn't do it, give you a set of lockpicks, and give you a timeframe that's the best for a non-violent escape. He's good (helping you, getting you out of the fix to the best of his ability, and laying a portion of his reputation on the line in doing so), and Chaotic (ignoring rules), and he's being Helpful from his standpoint.

Lawful-Evil: He'll give you a clearly-labeled dose of a lethal poison (or short length of rope, et cetera), so you can fulfill your honor, and avoid the shame of a conviction. He's Evil (getting you killed), and Lawful ( ... in a way that he sees as "honorable", and not violating his own code in the process), and he's being Helpful from his standpoint.

Chaotic-Evil (Why is a Chaotic person guarding a prison, again? Oh well...): He'll give you an easily-concealed weapon or two (daggers, Shuriken, darts, something of that nature) and a timeframe when he personally won't be gaurding you, possibly the timeframe of a gaurd he doesn't like. He's being Evil (helping you out in a way that will likely cause death and destruction), and Chaotic (ignoring rules), and he's being Helpful from his standpoint.

Gaurds that are neutral along one or both axis roll randomly from among the ones they are closest too (e.g., a CN person would be equally likely to give you lockpicks or a weapon, a LN person would be equally likely to give you a method of suicide or argue your case, a True Neutral could go any of the four, et cetera).

Diplomacy isn't useless - the successful check got you some help (even if it's not necessarily the type you wanted...), but it doesn't overwhelm the campaign (you have an extra chance to get out, but it's still not certain).

LurkerInPlayground
2009-02-15, 01:51 PM
I have in fact read his "criticism" of Rich's fix and none of those apply with an application of common sense.

Firstly, you'd have to bluff somebody into believing that your string was magical. Secondly, a lot of paperwork is involved in handing over castles. Thirdly, even if your string was magical, castles are still generally held to better. Even if your string was as good as a castle, it doesn't mean the castle-owner was in the market for uber-powerful magical artifacts. He makes a living off of that castle and its surrounding lands.

Basically, you *might* convince him your string is magical. You *might* convince him it was *as good.* And even then, no deal, he wasn't shopping around for magical string. He's trading the features of the item against his livelihood and status. Succeed at all that, and you still have to worry about transferring ownership. Powerful feudal lords have armies, staff, wives and allies. Succeed at all that and he'll still discover your con. Fend him off and congratulations you now own a castle of no use in direct combat, the core activity of our game.

The grandma-cookie example is a matter of an NPC acting out a forgone decision. That requires no Diplomacy because it's something grandma would have done already. If it is after dinner, grandma gives her son a cookie. Convincing a person to do something that they already wanted to do is pointless.

What would require a diplomacy check is convincing grandma to give you a cookie before dinner. Or asking for second or third cookie. To which: Grandma is not amused.

Jack_Simth
2009-02-15, 02:03 PM
I have in fact read his "criticism" of Rich's fix and none of those apply with an application of common sense.

That's the point of the criticism, though - if you use it in fairly simple situations, that aren't particularly unbeleivable, it breaks down. Likewise, if you offer certain people a Fantastic deal, they'll STILL turn it down if they're powerful people.


Firstly, you'd have to bluff somebody into believing that your string was magical. Secondly, a lot of paperwork is involved in handing over castles. Thirdly, even if your string was magical, castles are still generally held to better. Even if your string was as good as a castle, it doesn't mean the castle-owner was in the market for uber-powerful magical artifacts. He makes a living off of that castle and its surrounding lands.

Basically, you *might* convince him your string is magical. You *might* convince him it was *as good.* And even then, no deal, he wasn't shopping around for magical string. Succeed at all that, and you still have to worry about transferring ownership. This goes doubly if the features of the item in question are of not a worthwhile trade against his livelihood and status. And if he's unscrupulous and powerful, he'll just take the string by force.

You misunderstand. This is for you giving the person a castle in return for a mundane piece of string. If you have a +0 Diplomacy modifer, and you try to trade your castle for a bit of string, with the person who has the string being a 20th level Cleric with a Wisdom of 30, you've got problems - base DC is 15+HD+Wisdom modifier (45, in this case), if you're intimate with him (-10, maybe he's your best brother or something), and you're proposing a Fantastic deal (-10 - essentially giving away a castle), you've still got a final DC of 25. Without a +5 modifier (at a minimum, assuming you roll a nat-20!) you CAN'T give him the castle - he won't accept it.


The grandma-cookie example is a matter of an NPC acting out a forgone decision. That requires no Diplomacy because it's something grandma would have done already. If it is after dinner, grandma gives her son a cookie.

What would require a diplomacy check is convincing grandma to give you a cookie before dinner. Or asking for second or third cookie. To which: Grandma is not amused.
This is the point. The Giant's Diplomacy Fix is such that past a certain point, you've got a problem:
If the DM decides that it's a foregone conclusion, then it is a guaranteed success. If the DM decides that it requires a roll, it's essentially a guaranteed failure for anyone who hasn't invested in diplomacy. That is, it works okay for the guy who has max ranks in Diplomacy, but it doesn't work for anyone else. You've got a highly complicated rule that for most characters, amounts to the DM makes the call, and the dice don't really matter. Net Result: It's not particularly useful at the gaming table.

Myou
2009-02-15, 02:07 PM
I have in fact read his "criticism" of Rich's fix and none of those apply with an application of common sense.

Firstly, you'd have to bluff somebody into believing that your string was magical. Secondly, a lot of paperwork is involved in handing over castles. Thirdly, even if your string was magical, castles are still generally held to better. Even if your string was as good as a castle, it doesn't mean the castle-owner was in the market for uber-powerful magical artifacts. He makes a living off of that castle and its surrounding lands.

Basically, you *might* convince him your string is magical. You *might* convince him it was *as good.* And even then, no deal, he wasn't shopping around for magical string. Succeed at all that, and you still have to worry about transferring ownership. This goes doubly if the features of the item in question are of not a worthwhile trade against his livelihood and status. And if he's unscrupulous and powerful, he'll just take the string by force.

The grandma-cookie example is a matter of an NPC acting out a forgone decision. That requires no Diplomacy because it's something grandma would have done already. If it is after dinner, grandma gives her son a cookie. Convincing a person to do something that they already wanted to do is pointless.

What would require a diplomacy check is convincing grandma to give you a cookie before dinner. Or asking for second or third cookie. To which: Grandma is not amused.

Errr... you didn't read it properly, in his example you're the one with the castle, you have the whole thing backwards. ^^;

And you're making Defense 1, so I guess I'll just refer you to the text I quoted.

In any case, I'm not really interested in arguing about Rich's rules, as I've stated, they don't work for me or my DM and not just because of the balance issues.

Rich doesn't need anyone to defend him, I doubt he cares that a few players have chosen not to use a Diplomacy fix he came up with once, so there's no need for anyone to jump in to defend those rules.


You want a simple diplomacy fix?
...

But you can already do this with the current Diplomacy rules, and they already change attitude, not actions.

And you can still diplomance the BBEG or local god into being your best friend so it's still broken.

Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound so curt here (Edit again: Or in the post as a whole), and any suggestions are both welcome and appreciated!

Halaster
2009-02-15, 02:17 PM
Hi.

I concur with Jack here. Diplomacy is about attitudes. So when you change a persons attitude, even to the best possible, that does not mean, he will do whatever you ask. A king might have more important uses for his army than to let his best buddy take it out for a spin. I wouldn't let even my best friend talk me into stealing a car - I'm just not that kind of guy.

So, what you have to do to 'fix' the whol diplomacy thing is come up with reasonable lists of things that a given NPC would do at each attitude. So, a chaotic neutral bandit leader, who is in it for the thrill of breaking the law, might decide to let the PCs off the hook if he is brought to friendly. Even a helpful chaotic evil bandit boss might just steal their stuff instead of killing them, cause that's as helpful as he gets.

So, if diplomacy is about attitudes, what do you do when a character tells you he wants to influence someone to perform a specific course of action? You look at the attitude, look at the character being influenced, and make a call. Anything else is likely going to ruin your gaming experience, one way or another. D&D, like any other RPG doesn't need a system to make people jump through hoops on a die roll - and unlike some other RPGs, thankfully it actually doesn't have one.

CU,
Halaster

Jack_Simth
2009-02-15, 02:17 PM
But you can already do this with the current Diplomacy rules, and they already change attitude, not actions.

That's the point.


And you can still diplomance the BBEG or local god into being your best friend so it's still broken.
He's "friendly" not "fanatical". Remember - attitude, not actions. See, occasionally a ritual pops up where you need to sacrifice a good friend. Most don't give up their job at the request of a good friend.

You befriend a local deity? He'll take some risks... but he's still got his limits, thanks to the rules the pantheon plays by. He'll lend you some info, point you at some decent quests, possibly have his clerics give you some free healing when you stop by one of his temples ... but he's not coming down and doing everything for you (he's a friend, not a servant).

You befriend the BBEG? He'll invite you in for tea, offer you a place in his armies, offer to share some of the benefits of this week's human sacrifice if you'll fetch him a proper maiden to cover the costs... but he's a friend, not a servant. If there's a particular sacrifice you've taken a fancy to, he'll give her to you if he can reasonably expect to get a replacement for his ritual. If your hometown is on his list of cities to ravage, he'll put a note by it that it's merely to be conqured, and treated well. He isn't, however, going to give up offering sacrifices to his dark lord, nor is he going to give up his plans of conquest.

And do note that your actions will also influence his attitude - if you fly in the face of what the local deity stands for, he'll become less friendly (and you probably won't get another chance at his court - he befriended you, and you spurned him - he's not talking to you anymore). If you consistently oppose the BBEG's plans, he'll eventually give up on helping you to see reason, and so on.