New idea for Diplomacy in 3.5

[Frosty]

RAW Diplomacy rules suck. Rich Burlew's ideas are good, but the numbers are borked I feel. So I'm in the middle of coming up with an alternate system and I want a bit of feedback and I go along.

Diplomacy is now a part of "Deal Making" and it is only a party of it. No matter how good you are at talking, there are usually some deals so bad that people won't accept.

Only Sense Motive gives Syngergy bonus to Diplomacy.

Base roll: 1d20 + Diplomacy_Bonus. DC = 10 + Perceived Risk/Reward of Deal + Relationship.

Diplomacy_Bonus represents generally how good you are smooth-talking people into doing something for you. It is a not just a straight diplomacy roll. Here's how you determine your Diplomacy_Bonus. Roll your diplomacy. Divide the result by 5 (round down). That is your Diplomacy bonus (it's sort of like how Knowledge Devotion works mechanically) so for example if you rolled diplomacy and got a 26, you'd have a Diplomacy_Bonus of +5, since 26/5 is 5.2 which rounds down to 5.

I don't have all the numbers exactly fleshed out yet, but the Relationship bonus works the same as how the Giant does. The better terms you are on with the target, the more likely the deal happens (aka the DC is lowered).

The Perceived Risk/Reward of Deal is how good the target thinks your proposed deal is. For example, you could be totally honest in presenting a straight forward, mutually beneficial exchange, but if the target is too stupid to get that, he might think it's a very BAD deal and you'd have to work much harder to convince him of the deal. On the other hand, he may also think a very bad deal is actually very good, making it easier for you to do the deal.

Perceived Risk/Reward bonuses is the same as Rich's Risk vs Reward Judgement, BUT before the DM decides which bonus to apply, the Target makes a roll so see if he interprets the deal correctly. The roll is typically 1d20+HD+Wisdom Mod. The more experienced you are (higher level), the more likely you're going to judge things accurately. And the wiser you are, the better you judge things too. Based on this roll, the DM will see whether the target understands the deal correctly. If so, use Rich's Risk vs Reward Judgement numbers. If not, the DM will choose another category of Risk vs Reward and use those mods instead.

Anyone (including you) who wants to influence the target's Perceived Risk/Reward by lying/misrepresenting facts may do so normally with Bluff vs the target's sense motive. If the bluff is successful, the target will perceive the risk/reward situation based on the erroneous facts, even if he rolls well on the 1d20+HD+Wisdom Mod, because he went through a good decision-making process based on bad assumptions. This means someone else could try to come in and try to ruin your deal-making.
-------------------------------------

I'll put together an example sometime tonight, but please give me some feedback so far. This makes every Diplomacy into a quite complex thing, but diplomacy is supposed to be complex.

[Riffington]

Just want to make sure I understand it: you are comparing D20+(Diplomacy + Cha + D20)/5 to 10 + Stuff + (function of HD + Wisdom + D20)? This makes a total of 3 rolls, 2 of which cannot be added directly in because they are put into functions first?

[Foryn Gilnith]

Complex does not mean good. Complex does not mean bad. What complex does mean, however, is difficult to playtest. How are you sure that these numbers are less borked than Rich's? (I disagree with Rich's premise, and dislike his system, but still)

[ericgrau]

IMO the simplest way is to just say no to diplomacy checks that don't make sense. There, 1 mountain of headaches eliminated with a single sentence. So if you can auto-succeed on diplomacy checks to make reasonable deals to cooperate with arch-enemies, good for you. You are now up to Saturday morning cartoon hero status. But you won't break the game.

[Zaq]

IMO the simplest way is to just say no to diplomacy checks that don't make sense. There, 1 mountain of headaches eliminated with a single sentence. So if you can auto-succeed on diplomacy checks to make reasonable deals to cooperate with arch-enemies, good for you. You are now up to Saturday morning cartoon hero status. But you won't break the game.

Oberoni Fallacy.

[ericgrau]

I googled Oberoni Fallacy and could only find comments that it was overused bludgeoning weapon used against everything. Then I finally found something that explained what it was, and it still said O.F. was flawed.

But basically this is not Oberoni Fallacy b/c you are only using diplomacy in a reasonable fashion - i.e., for diplomacy only - not eliminating it with rule 0. This is simply using Rules As Makes Sense rather than an over-literal & silly Rules As Written. You might as well say the rules are flawed because you can boost your speed by grappling. No, not at all. Only the silly interpretation is to blame for that.

EDIT: And for that matter I never claimed this wasn't a house rule. Whether you see it as a proper application of the existing rules or a nice house rule, the way it plays out in the end is the same. Doesn't make any difference to me either way.

[Riffington]

I googled Oberoni Fallacy and could only find comments that it was overused bludgeoning weapon used against everything. Then I finally found something that explained what it was, and it still said O.F. was flawed.

But basically this is not Oberoni Fallacy b/c you are only using diplomacy in a reasonable fashion - i.e., for diplomacy only - not eliminating it with rule 0. This is simply using Rules As Makes Sense rather than an over-literal & silly Rules As Written. You might as well say the rules are flawed because you can boost your speed by grappling. No, not at all. Only the silly interpretation is to blame for that.

EDIT: And for that matter I never claimed this wasn't a house rule. Whether you see it as a proper application of the existing rules or a nice house rule, the way it plays out in the end is the same. Doesn't make any difference to me either way.

Correct. This is the problem with the invented "fallacies" that show up on this board: they are not actually fallacies, and the belief that they are fallacies causes people to discard valid arguments.

To the extent that the Oberoni "fallacy" is a useful concept it is this: it is indeed unhelpful to assume a houserule of "common-sense DM" when many players prefer to play with ridiculous DMs. In this case, it doesn't apply (and in no case is it actually a fallacy).

Back to topic: one thing I think OP is doing (and I agree) is compressing the Diplomacy score. Allowing Diplomacy to scale on a 1:1 basis does break the game. I personally would prefer a logarithmic scale rather than a linear 1/5 scale, so that low-level differences in Diplomacy matter. If I were using his formula, I'd replace the (1/5 Diplomacy+Cha+d20) with 2log2 (Diplomacy+Cha). That way, there is a real difference between a dwarf with Cha 8 and a 1st level Paladin with Cha 14/Diplomacy 4 (-1 vs +5) but the high level Bard with Cha 20/Diplomacy 12/Misc 4 is "only" +9

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Correct. This is the problem with the invented "fallacies" that show up on this board: they are not actually fallacies, and the belief that they are fallacies causes people to discard valid arguments.

To the extent that the Oberoni "fallacy" is a useful concept it is this: it is indeed unhelpful to assume a houserule of "common-sense DM" when many players prefer to play with ridiculous DMs. In this case, it doesn't apply (and in no case is it actually a fallacy).

Actually, most of the D&D-specific fallacies are simply specific cases of broader fallacies; the Stormwind Fallacy is simply a narrower False Dilemma fallacy, and Oberoni is a particular instance of the Contradictory Premises fallacy, phrased as The line of reasoning "Rule X is not broken because the DM can houserule a fix for it, therefore this houserule is unnecessary" is fallacious because the premises "Rule X is not broken" and "The DM can fix it" are mutually contradictory; if the rule is broken, it does not need to be fixed, and if the rule needs to be fixed, then the rule must be broken. It says nothing about interpretations of rules, or RAW vs. RAI, or common-sense DMs, or anything like that; it is nothing more or less than a counter to the common claim of "But that's not a problem, because you can ."

However, most of the time, the fallacies aren't understood or are heard secondhand, so they are used incorrectly--in other words, though Oberoni in its simplest form is correct, not every instance of claiming Oberoni is correct. In this case, I'd say it [I]is used correctly, because it was responding to the statement "the simplest way is to just say no to diplomacy checks that don't make sense" which is actually saying "the simplest way [to fix Diplomacy] is [for the DM] to just say no to diplomacy checks that don't make sense"...which is simply another way of stating that Diplomacy isn't a problem because the DM can stop you from making a check when it would break things to do so. It's true that most DMs don't let you abuse Diplomacy, but saying that a fix is unnecessary because of this is the problem.

[Riffington]

Actually, most of the D&D-specific fallacies are simply specific cases of broader fallacies; the Stormwind Fallacy is simply a narrower False Dilemma fallacy
Not quite. The False Dichotomy fallacy is when you consider only A or B when C is also a possibility. Stormwind is a claim that B cannot not fall into A. This is not a fallacy: it's a premise that may or may not be true. But a factual claim (correct or incorrect) will never be a fallacy.



and Oberoni is a particular instance of the Contradictory Premises fallacy, phrased as The line of reasoning "Rule X is not broken because the DM can houserule a fix for it, therefore this houserule is unnecessary" is fallacious because the premises "Rule X is not broken" and "The DM can fix it" are mutually contradictory; if the rule is broken, it does not need to be fixed, and if the rule needs to be fixed, then the rule must be broken. It says nothing about interpretations of rules, or RAW vs. RAI, or common-sense DMs, or anything like that; it is nothing more or less than a counter to the common claim of "But that's not a problem, because you can [ignore the rule|fix it|houserule it]."
[/quote]

I think I'll buy this. But in that case it isn't being appropriately used here, because Eric admits the rule is potentially broken and points out how to fix it. It can only be the Contradictory Premises fallacy if your argument actually relies on the rule being a non-broken one that needs to be fixed, which Eric's does not.

[quote]which is simply another way of stating that Diplomacy isn't a problem
He's stating that Diplomacy is a problem to which he will provide a solution, not that it isn't a problem.

[erikun]

Oberoni Fallacy.
Wouldn't apply here. There is no question if Diplomancy is broken in 3.5e, and Ericgrau isn't implying that it isn't. He's merely implying that the houserule "Don't allow Diplomancy results with do not make sense" is simpler and easier than the houserule proposed in the original post.

As for Diplomancy itself, I think that involving long devision or logarithmic equations to dice rolls is a little bit past the simple "roll dice, add numbers" system. At that point, you're probably better off simple writing up a table and just cross-referencing rolls. Well, unless you like your calculators.

I'd think the simplest solution is to just limit what Diplomancy can do. Just state that no single Diplomancy roll can shift someone's attitude more than two spaces (for characters who have otherwise no interest in the PCs) or no more than one space (for character who do). For example, if the party is ambushed by orcs in the middle of the night, you could make a roll from Hostile to Indifferent, but not to Friendly or Helpful. On the other hand, if the party is mainly elves or known orc-slayers, then no roll will move the orcs any higher than unfriendly.

Of course, this assumes the party can back up their Diplomancy offer. If you're dealing with orcs that have captured you, and you get them to let you go, this generally wouldn't mean "go freely and with all your stuff". Heck, I'd be surprised if the party left with only half their belongings.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Not quite. The False Dichotomy fallacy is when you consider only A or B when C is also a possibility. Stormwind is a claim that B cannot not fall into A. This is not a fallacy: it's a premise that may or may not be true. But a factual claim (correct or incorrect) will never be a fallacy.

Generally, Stormwind is meant to reply to people who say "But you're a roll-player, so you can't roleplay!" or "You optimize because you hate the story!" or whatever, establishing a false dichotomy between A (pure focus on mechanics) and B (pure focus on flavor) without allowing C (someone who optimizes and roleplays).


I think I'll buy this. But in that case it isn't being appropriately used here, because Eric admits the rule is potentially broken and points out how to fix it. It can only be the Contradictory Premises fallacy if your argument actually relies on the rule being a non-broken one that needs to be fixed, which Eric's does not.

He's stating that Diplomacy is a problem to which he will provide a solution, not that it isn't a problem.

Ah. I read that as "It's not a problem as long as you do X" rather than "It's a problem, you can fix it with X." Objection retracted.

[Frosty]

Just want to make sure I understand it: you are comparing D20+(Diplomacy + Cha + D20)/5 to 10 + Stuff + (function of HD + Wisdom + D20)? This makes a total of 3 rolls, 2 of which cannot be added directly in because they are put into functions first?

Yes. more rolls. Kinda like a skill challenge. The numbers will have to be playtested, but the basics boil down to...You present a trade. You presented it well if your rolled well in diplomacy. The target mulls over the trade and thinks about how good it is. The target also takes into account how close of a friend you are.

Also, I'd agree about the log scale if this were a computer game, but I don't want to make my players do log calculations at the gaming table. But yes, compression of Diplomacy is my goal.