PDA

View Full Version : Diplomacy



Volomon
2010-07-15, 11:24 AM
Ok, my DM is running basically what is a dungeon crawler and all this. Should be quite fun as this will be my whole second time playing as a player.

I've always wondered about Diplomacy and have always found it to be one of those things rarely used by my players unless the situation is presented as "one of those kind" of situations you know your approached by a city watch for randomly happen chancing on a dead body in an alley. Clearly diplomacy or some quick words are needed.

Now I've always wondered ok if your in a random dungeon just for the fun and loot of it, can you potentially diplomacize one of the natives? For instance a room harboring ten goblins is walked in on and they all turn to notice you can I use diplomacy and some gold to hire me a guide for the rest of the dungeon, I mean clearly they live here. However I notice that the PHB says it takes X minutes to negotiate a better attitude. Further it says preempting a fight could potentially give you a -10 DC say for instance the goblins just rush me and I am all like no I wish to parley.

Is the PHB just assuming that no fighting is happening??

As a DM or player what do you say to these kinds of situations. Would it potentially break a (on the fly) dungeon if you had a personal guide, and what would you do just attack the players anyway even if one of them spoke goblin? How many of these situations have you ever seen, personally I never see any of them. It seems we all assume if it's in a dungeon it's evil and wrong and must die for the progression of our levels.

Morph Bark
2010-07-15, 11:27 AM
Diplomacy is actually one of the most broken skills in the game. Pump it up high enough and you can make anyone into your friend, no matter their level, stats, abilities, or whatever else as long as they have an Int score of 3 or higher.

Hence why this (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) is a good replacement.

jiriku
2010-07-15, 11:35 AM
I use Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules IMC, and it works marvelously well, although I scale the Risk v. Reward modifiers across +/- 20 rather than +/- 10.

But to directly address your question, yes, Diplomacy has a place in the dungeon. At least, RAW it does. In practice, I find that your ability to use Diplomacy depends heavily on the flexibility and open-mindedness of your DM. If you try to negotiate with the goblins with a bad DM, you'll get a facefull of arrows for your trouble because in the DM's mind "you're supposed to fight them". OTOH, if your DM is more willing to go with the flow, then you'll have a chance (although you do face the -10 modifier for rushed Diplomacy).

G3N3R3L GHOST
2010-07-15, 11:43 AM
As stated before diplomacy definitely has a place anywhere. I know there is even a couple of PRC's dedicated to using words instead of swords. Can't think of them off the top of my head but I believe one is in complete divine on in BoED and ond in a Forgotten realms? book. Regardless there is definitely merit in your idea. So roll with it if your DM is down.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-15, 11:51 AM
I dunno, I like bluff more. Since it is only a -20 penalty to tell a ridiculous lie to somebody. xD

Yorrin
2010-07-15, 12:19 PM
On the other hand, if you want to ignore everyone telling you to not use the broken RAW Diplomacy, take a one level dip in Binder. The Naberius vestige allows you to Diplomance as a standard action without the -10 penalty. If you're REALLY serious about it grab a level in Marshal as well and choose 'Motive Charisma' as your minor aura. Given that you've got a decent Cha mod and max your ranks in Diplomacy you'll be well on your way to never having to fight an intelligent foe ever again.

Morph Bark
2010-07-15, 01:07 PM
On the other hand, if you want to ignore everyone telling you to not use the broken RAW Diplomacy, take a one level dip in Binder. The Naberius vestige allows you to Diplomance as a standard action without the -10 penalty. If you're REALLY serious about it grab a level in Marshal as well and choose 'Motive Charisma' as your minor aura. Given that you've got a decent Cha mod and max your ranks in Diplomacy you'll be well on your way to never having to fight an intelligent foe ever again.

Well, if you're gonna go that way... I might as well present Fred.

Behold: Fred the Diplomancer (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20571349/Suggestions_on_an_Evil_Diplomancer&post_num=5#359813065).

Aroka
2010-07-15, 01:16 PM
Diplomacy should be potentially useful with any intelligent creatures. Even halfway decent adventures (including many D&D or AD&D adventures) should include some notes on how various intelligent creatures encountered may react to attempts at negotiation or bribery.

But it's always up to the DM. If the DM is hidebound, bad at improvisation, and hasn't prepared negotiation scenarios for the adventure, you're not going to have much success. If the DM is better at saying "yes", you'll find all skills, not just Diplomacy, far, far more useful.

WarKitty
2010-07-15, 03:12 PM
Diplomacy should be potentially useful with any intelligent creatures. Even halfway decent adventures (including many D&D or AD&D adventures) should include some notes on how various intelligent creatures encountered may react to attempts at negotiation or bribery.

But it's always up to the DM. If the DM is hidebound, bad at improvisation, and hasn't prepared negotiation scenarios for the adventure, you're not going to have much success. If the DM is better at saying "yes", you'll find all skills, not just Diplomacy, far, far more useful.

This actually keeps coming up in the campaign I'm running. I hate saying "no" all the time...but the players want to use diplomacy on EVERYTHING. Even where it really doesn't make sense. I hate the feeling that I'm not letting them use a skill, but how do I get them to actually fight things on occasion if I let them use it? Otherwise we might as well not have a party, just the bard adventuring with a bunch of dead weight.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-15, 04:15 PM
This actually keeps coming up in the campaign I'm running. I hate saying "no" all the time...but the players want to use diplomacy on EVERYTHING. Even where it really doesn't make sense. I hate the feeling that I'm not letting them use a skill, but how do I get them to actually fight things on occasion if I let them use it? Otherwise we might as well not have a party, just the bard adventuring with a bunch of dead weight.

If they really prefer talking to fighting, maybe you should skew the adventures towards RP challenges that involve the whole party. Have them play out conversations, and if the bard is dominating that arena, then the NPC they're talking to can directly address one of the others. "That's very nice, harp-boy, but I really wanted to know what Bob the Fighter thought. I respect a man with a greatsword." Thus, they're all involved, and the fact that they prefer talking to fighting is no longer a negative.

And if you're really itching for combat, just make sure to occasionally introduce creatures who aren't swayed by diplomacy; animal-intelligence creatures that don't have the mental capacity for it, or really really evil creatures that just don't feel like talking to the party (demons, perhaps).

Of course, you'll have to give out heaps of roleplaying XP to keep them advancing through the levels, but that's not difficult. "Alice the Wizard, you did really well in that meeting with the courtiers. Take 500xp." Etc., etc.

Edit: And if the situation really doesn't make sense for Diplomacy, just assign a huge circumstance penalty. "You want to... negotiate with the drider? Sure, but take -10 to your rolls."

WarKitty
2010-07-15, 04:20 PM
If they really prefer talking to fighting, maybe you should skew the adventures towards RP challenges that involve the whole party. Have them play out conversations, and if the bard is dominating that arena, then the NPC they're talking to can directly address one of the others. "That's very nice, harp-boy, but I really wanted to know what Bob the Fighter thought. I respect a man with a greatsword." Thus, they're all involved, and the fact that they prefer talking to fighting is no longer a negative.

And if you're really itching for combat, just make sure to occasionally introduce creatures who aren't swayed by diplomacy; animal-intelligence creatures that don't have the mental capacity for it, or really really evil creatures that just don't feel like talking to the party (demons, perhaps).

Of course, you'll have to give out heaps of roleplaying XP to keep them advancing through the levels, but that's not difficult. "Alice the Wizard, you did really well in that meeting with the courtiers. Take 500xp." Etc., etc.

Edit: And if the situation really doesn't make sense for Diplomacy, just assign a huge circumstance penalty. "You want to... negotiate with the drider? Sure, but take -10 to your rolls."

It's more like half our players prefer talking, and half the players prefer fighting. Plus they're already doing no-combat or single-combat sessions most of the time.

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

Volomon
2010-07-15, 04:32 PM
It's more like half our players prefer talking, and half the players prefer fighting. Plus they're already doing no-combat or single-combat sessions most of the time.

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

I think you have a DM issue not a player issue, what I mean by that is say for instance a NPC's purpose in life is to take over the world through undead minions, that character can not be coerced via diplomacy no mater what. His minions who want to become part of his ever living undead army (aka theres no side effects from being dead just ever lasting life) will not negotiate either.

The only way Diplomacy can effect the situation is if the opposing creature is hostile, this means it's just pissed off and the PC's are not actually in direct conflict with it's over all goal in life, aka no better than a mean bull. Hence why I posed the original question with the prefix of being a random dungeon crawl (no goal purpose). There is no DC modifier it is just impossible. It would similar to convincing someone to jump off a bridge. You can have all the negotiating skill in the world, it's not going to help.

Ultimately this mean's there to many creatures in the campaign/adventure without a purpose if they can so easily join the PCs after years of working for a master for a goal, then there is something wrong with the over all campaign itself.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-15, 04:34 PM
I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

Ah, we did houserule that. I think we settled on 5 words or less as a free action; past that, you're eating into your turn... and yes, eventually your turn will end, and if you haven't been convincing enough, you're going to take another hit.

WarKitty
2010-07-15, 04:35 PM
I think you have a DM issue not a player issue, what I mean by that is say for instance a NPC's purpose in life is to take over the world through undead minions, that character can not be coerced via diplomacy no mater what. His minions who want to become part of his ever living undead army (aka theres no side effects from being dead just ever lasting life) will not negotiate either.

The only way Diplomacy can effect the situation is if the opposing creature is hostile, this means it's just pissed off and the PC's are not actually in direct conflict with it's over all goal in life aka no better than a mean bull.

Ultimately this mean's there to many creatures in the campaign/adventure without a purpose if they can so easily join the PCs after years of working for a master for a goal, then there is something wrong.


Yeah that's sort of the way I have been running it. I just feel bad because I'm constantly telling my characters "no, you can't use this completely maxed out skill you have." I'm trying to find some way to let them use it without it being a freebie all the time.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-15, 04:40 PM
Yeah that's sort of the way I have been running it. I just feel bad because I'm constantly telling my characters "no, you can't use this completely maxed out skill you have." I'm trying to find some way to let them use it without it being a freebie all the time.

You know, just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they can't roll for it. :smallamused:

Player: I want to use Diplomacy on the lich.
DM: Sure.
Player: [roll] I got a 29.
DM: Your brief attempt at negotiation, however prettily worded, fails to persuade him to give up the goal towards which he has been working for centuries. And it's his turn now. [roll] Make a Reflex save.

Volomon
2010-07-15, 04:41 PM
Yeah that's sort of the way I have been running it. I just feel bad because I'm constantly telling my characters "no, you can't use this completely maxed out skill you have." I'm trying to find some way to let them use it without it being a freebie all the time.

Well just start sorting out some major DCs, I have one adventure that envolves a ball and diplomatic meeting between countries. Then further on one of the diplomats turn out to be a major wanted criminal (aka the guy they are after), and whole chase beings. Really he's one of the only handful of creatures they fight.

It doesn't have to be autowin, the max skill is what 24? You gain -10 for just trying to stop a fight already in progress trying to stop someone who doesn't like you is like another -10 so leaving 4 isn't autowin.

Just get cranking on some heavy DCs, and RP your side of the conversation, they might even RP theres and the whole DC won't matter.

Volomon
2010-07-15, 04:42 PM
You know, just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they can't roll for it. :smallamused:

Player: I want to use Diplomacy on the lich.
DM: Sure.
Player: [roll] I got a 29.
DM: Your brief attempt at negotiation, however prettily worded, fails to persuade him to give up the goal to which he has been working for centuries. And it's his turn now. [roll] Make a Reflex save.

Ya I agree, don't use words like "No" you can't do that. Never use NO in any situation. Explain what happens instead. Above is a perfect example.

WarKitty
2010-07-15, 04:43 PM
Ya I agree, don't use words like "No" you can't do that. Never use NO in any situation. Explain what happens instead. Above is a perfect example.

Admittedly my group does require (and expect) "no" on occasion. Like "I roll to intimidate the poison gas trap."

Saya
2010-07-15, 04:44 PM
As the DM, it's always possible to just set up situations where diplomacy simply doesn't work, ie: the enemy simply doesn't want to talk.

Enemy clerics/champions of enemy deities almost never want to go peacefully with you, since if they do, there's a pretty good chance they'll lose their powers, and it's not worth it.

Another thing you can do is ask the player "What do you want to say?", and make it not simply just another dice roll, where the player has to choose the right thing to say, or take a massive penalty to the check.

Volomon
2010-07-15, 04:47 PM
Admittedly my group does require (and expect) "no" on occasion. Like "I roll to intimidate the poison gas trap."

Ok that requires a slap, but also I would say "You approach closer to give it a face full of spittle and rage, however you incidental step on the trap, and it's repose is broke with fury as you choke on it's witless banter of gas." Yup I'd still let my players pull that crap, but they pay for I am an unforgiving DM.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-15, 06:26 PM
Ok that requires a slap, but also I would say "You approach closer to give it a face full of spittle and rage, however you incidental step on the trap, and it's repose is broke with fury as you choke on it's witless banter of gas." Yup I'd still let my players pull that crap, but they pay for I am an unforgiving DM.

This is, I've found, the best way to handle that sort of nonsense. Volomon's wording is much funnier than any of my responses have beem though.:smallsmile:

Aroka
2010-07-15, 06:27 PM
This actually keeps coming up in the campaign I'm running. I hate saying "no" all the time...but the players want to use diplomacy on EVERYTHING. Even where it really doesn't make sense. I hate the feeling that I'm not letting them use a skill, but how do I get them to actually fight things on occasion if I let them use it? Otherwise we might as well not have a party, just the bard adventuring with a bunch of dead weight.

The thing is, you can say "yes, but." It's an improv acting thing that really comes in handy in RPGs of any kind: instead of blocking, you accept and adapt.

"Can I talk to the enemy?"
"Yes, but do you have anything they want?"

Just because someone tries to talk doesn't mean it results in anything useful. You should not let dice and Diplomacy ranks overrule what makes sense: a bunch of bandits aren't going to be dissuaded by an impassioned speech about the value of hard work and people's right to property, but they might let the PCs go for a large enough bribe (and a good Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate check; on a failure, the bandits decide to just take it all).

This the whole "thinking on your feet" part. It's not necessarily easy - I learned it by running RPG campaigns on a completely improv basis for something like 10 years. But practice and theory both help a lot.

You may also want to prepare by creating scenarios that can go either way - if the bard does a good job at negotiating (not just a good Diplomacy check), maybe they can avoid a big fight, but it won't be free. Or maybe they can bribe their enemies to help them - the goblins living near the dungeon show them a way in. (But maybe they also set up an ambush for when the PCs come out laden with all that treasure.)


It's more like half our players prefer talking, and half the players prefer fighting. Plus they're already doing no-combat or single-combat sessions most of the time.

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

This is easy to fix with the rules. Making a Diplomacy check requires 10 consecutive, uninterrupted full-round actions. That's not going to happen in the middle of a pitched fight. If the bard suddenly comes up with something incredible or shouts out just the right words, maybe he can create a lull in the combat (provided the entire party stops fighting) and initiate negotiations, but that's a big maybe.

Say yes, but follow the rules ("yes, but it takes 10 full-round actions"), and don't give free rides: make the player work for it.


So, remember: "Yes, but...", "What's the pay-off?", "Things change."



Ya I agree, don't use words like "No" you can't do that. Never use NO in any situation. Explain what happens instead. Above is a perfect example.

This, too. People can always try, but sometimes there's no way to succeed. A good DM can also come up with ways to make the failure interesting - they can complicate rather than block or stop the story. (Instead of failing to climb the wall at all, you clamber over it and fall, hurting your leg.)

If they get nonsensical (trying to interact with traps), just go "What? How?"


Edit: Remember, though, that sometimes it just works for a character to give a speech and end a battle and turn enemies into allies. It depends on relative power levels and the "epic" quotinent of your campaign.

Watchers
2010-07-15, 06:42 PM
Well just start sorting out some major DCs, I have one adventure that envolves a ball and diplomatic meeting between countries. Then further on one of the diplomats turn out to be a major wanted criminal (aka the guy they are after), and whole chase beings. Really he's one of the only handful of creatures they fight.

It doesn't have to be autowin, the max skill is what 24? You gain -10 for just trying to stop a fight already in progress trying to stop someone who doesn't like you is like another -10 so leaving 4 isn't autowin.

Last I checked, there were ways to improve skills other than just investing ranks. Otherwise, how would a level 6 character have a +94 to his check? Also, a few -10 penalties won't hurt his chances very much.


RP your side of the conversation, they might even RP theres and the whole DC won't matter.

Another thing you can do is ask the player "What do you want to say?", and make it not simply just another dice roll, where the player has to choose the right thing to say, or take a massive penalty to the check.

Pet peeve. This can lead to a situation where just because the player of the Bard is a poor speaker and the player of the barbarian is Barack Obama, the dude with the charisma penalty and no ranks ends up having more success than the guy with a +90 modifier.

EDIT: At above: You can make a diplomacy check as a standard action, as per the rules. You just take a decent penalty.

thompur
2010-07-15, 06:44 PM
Also remember, Diplomacy only works in convincing the other being to being favorably disposed to you. It won't necessarily change their mind.

Lich: "You make an intriguing arguement, Bard. I think I shall not have my minions kill you as they will the rest of your party. You will, instead, be permitted to live as my personal historian. Your first assignment will to compose an epic about the death of your companions at my hands."

Diplomacy can only be abused if the DM allows it.

Aroka
2010-07-15, 06:46 PM
Pet peeve. This can lead to a situation where just because the player of the Bard is a poor speaker and the player of the barbarian is Barack Obama, the dude with the charisma penalty and no ranks ends up having more success than the guy with a +90 modifier.

Fo' sho'. If a game has social skills and someone invests in them, they shouldn't be negated.

RP (acting) should be less important than choices and decisions - I don't care how my players RP the negotiation, but I care endlessly about what they are offering and asking for. Those decisions will influence many things: the DC (or check bonuses), and what success and failure result in.

elonin
2010-07-15, 07:00 PM
I recall looking at Rich's diplomacy rules and thinking that he has set the bar so high that it is like use magic device (wait until you have 10 ranks or suffer bad results). I can understand the desire to make the skill harder at top levels but he didn't consider the consequences for low level people. Believe me that a fix is needed.

Watchers
2010-07-15, 07:03 PM
I dunno, I think a +94 at level 6 could probably cope with those rules.

Aroka
2010-07-15, 07:10 PM
I dunno, I think a +94 at level 6 could probably cope with those rules.

You can't really set the bar at dealing with outliers that distant, though.

WarKitty
2010-07-15, 08:03 PM
I recall looking at Rich's diplomacy rules and thinking that he has set the bar so high that it is like use magic device (wait until you have 10 ranks or suffer bad results). I can understand the desire to make the skill harder at top levels but he didn't consider the consequences for low level people. Believe me that a fix is needed.

This seems to be a common problem with D&D in general. Skills are either too costly to be useful at low ranks, or too easy once you have a certain level.

What you really need is some way to have an opposed roll to diplomacy.

elonin
2010-07-15, 08:06 PM
While we are at it why not an opposed check for tumble? It's stupid that once you can beat a 25 tumble check you are full speed tumbling past four opponents at a time without breaking a sweat. Unlike tumble there is an opposed check for diplomacy in a sense motive check.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-15, 08:13 PM
Unlike tumble there is an opposed check for diplomacy in a sense motive check.

Well, that's really situation-based. A Sense Motive check would only be useful against a Diplomacy check if the person rolling the check found their motives distasteful.

Aroka
2010-07-15, 08:24 PM
Well, that's really situation-based. A Sense Motive check would only be useful against a Diplomacy check if the person rolling the check found their motives distasteful.

I just set the DC according to the circumstances, and never mind the table.

Watchers
2010-07-15, 08:29 PM
Unlike tumble there is an opposed check for diplomacy in a sense motive check.

Er, no. Diplomacy is obscene entirely because it is a fixed DC. Not a very high one, either.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-16, 02:13 AM
Fo' sho'. If a game has social skills and someone invests in them, they shouldn't be negated.

RP (acting) should be less important than choices and decisions - I don't care how my players RP the negotiation, but I care endlessly about what they are offering and asking for. Those decisions will influence many things: the DC (or check bonuses), and what success and failure result in.
Personally I disagree that RP should be less important - it is, after all, the foundation on which the game is designed and the entire point of the rules is to facilitate RP, not the other way around.

But yes, absolutely - even if you feel the skill should be more important and don't want to take into account the player's actual speaking skill, make the player explain exactly what he's offering. Diplomacy doesn't just mean 'say some stuff and they like you', you have to make an argument that's convincing to the target. Even if you don't require the player to roleplay out the argument itself, the player should need to present a reasonably good description of what his character is proposing to the NPC.

"I use diplomacy on the goblins."
"What are you offering?"
"Theorizing that the goblins are probably pretty weak in the dungeon hierarchy, I suggest that if they leave me alone and give me some advice on things deeper inside and routes around the dungeon, and warn me of the dangerous traps, I'll leave them alone and possibly wipe out many of their superiors, letting them assume control of the place and move into really nice rooms and such. And if I get killed further in, not really a concern for them either."

That's a reasonable thing to offer. The player doesn't have to RP the exact words his character says, that's what the roll does, but there needs to be something for him to say. Overall, I really like Rich's diplomacy system because it works a lot like this.

And by the way, as for players that are diplomacy-ing their way past all the fights, remember that enemies you don't fight might give you some exp, but you get no loot. If you never fight anything even when it is appropriate to do so, you're not going to get any loot. Just because someone is friendly to you doesn't mean they're going to give you their prized possessions if you ask for them, after all.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-16, 01:38 PM
I use common sense Diplomacy, basically what Mnemnosyne explains they have to at least make an offer that sounds reasonable. I also apply the general bluff rules for adjusting the difficulty of your check.

One important factor to consider is diplomacy does NOT determine their actions. The target decides what friendly or helpful means. Friendly could mean they let you turn around and walk away without a fight. Helpful could mean they pretend they never saw you after you walk away.

It could also mean the vampire decides to make you into vampires rather then kill you.

Somethings a naturally impossible like say using diplomacy on a group of paladins so they'll let you pass and burn down an orphanage and eat the children.

Nero24200
2010-07-16, 02:51 PM
I don't like diplomacy. If I'm DMing a campaign and my players don't use the skill at all? I don't consider it a loss. I wouldn't say Diploamcy rules are the thing I hate most about D20 games...but it's definately up there.

Call it Stormwind Fallacy if you think it's appropraite, but I see it as a mechanic that gets in the way of roleplaying. Players trying to talk down an NPC barbarian about to rage? Well...they could actually say appropraite stuff IC to calm him down...or just say something like "Calm down" and ask for a diplomacy check. :smallannoyed:

Think a situation wouldn't be solved with diplomacy? Doesn't matter. Tack a huge penalty, then you end up with one of two scenarios.
1: Players still make it - In which case the penalty is pointless and the players can use dipomacy to overcome every challenge there.
2: Players, even if putting appropraite ranks in the skill and possibly adding to it (say...via skill focus or a PrC) can't make the check...in which case, what's the point in having it?

@OP If you want to do things like talk down goblins in a dungeon...if it were up to me, I'd say just try it and don't bother using the diplomacy rules. Even if you do like the mechanical idea of diplomacy the actual RAW needs alot of work.

Kantolin
2010-07-16, 03:20 PM
You know, just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they can't roll for it. :smallamused:

But when that happens too many times, it means we fall back to 'diplomacy doesn't do anything', potentially mixed with 'So stop leading me along and wasting both of our time'.


Player: I want to use Diplomacy on the lich.
DM: Sure.
Player: [roll] I got a 29.
DM: Your brief attempt at negotiation, however prettily worded, fails to persuade him to give up the goal towards which he has been working for centuries. And it's his turn now. [roll] Make a Reflex save.

That could be fine if this wasn't the sixtieth time this campaign diplomacy was attempted, and if the players weren't in fact /holding his phylactery/ and trying to simply use it to bargain with him. I mean, the Lich can go take a few more centuries to work on his goal if he has his phylactery back, so you'd think he'd be more accepting.


I suppose, generally speaking, I have the same problem of 'diplomacy doesn't do anything'. If your party likes talking to everything, put them in more diplomatic situations - that's apparantly what they like doing - or at least places where diplomacy has a minor but not battle-ending effect. Plan for it, rather than against it.

I'm in two real life games at the instant, and throughout the entire campaigns of both diplomacy has worked /once/ against someone who otherwise wasn't likely to change his mind. It's been /considered/ two more times and then turned down - which is okay, mind you, but gets frustrating when you think that 'diplomacy doesn't do anything'. Makes me wonder why people then get annoyed at detect-smite paladins.

If you don't want people talking to things in your games, say that, like that. I personally like people using words a lot more than thugging my way through everything that moves, but I'd at least be happier if the DM expressly told everyone at the beginning of the campaign that talking has no purpose.

Heck, my character - in character - pointed out to the more bloodthirsty character in the party that she should just let him speak to them first, since it literally has never resulted in us not fighting it out. (He points out things like that with frequency).

Ranos
2010-07-16, 04:14 PM
snip

Seconded. I'm playing an exalted diplomancer in a party of mostly lawful good characters, and we would be rightly screwed if the DM could just decide how NPCs react without concerning himself with our diplomacy score. As it is, we avoid killing sentient beings as much as we were able, though that wasn't always possible, but the diplomacy rules were a great help.

Granted, we're using Rich's rules, so there's no rushing, you always need one minute of convincing (no in-combat diplomancing unless you're really confident you can hold out), and you only make people accept deals instead of them turning fanatic. Now, the deals can be hugely in our favor since I can hit the DC 50+ on a take10, but it's still just one deal, and being exalted I'm not gonna have people give me all their stuff for a piece of string anyway. Not that it would be that broken if I did anyway, an evil character could just kill them and loot the body.

Because you have to spell out the terms of the 'contract', you're also kind of obligated to roleplay the diplomacy. Really, I think those rules solve pretty much everyone's problems here.

WarKitty
2010-07-16, 04:22 PM
I don't like diplomacy. If I'm DMing a campaign and my players don't use the skill at all? I don't consider it a loss. I wouldn't say Diploamcy rules are the thing I hate most about D20 games...but it's definately up there.

Call it Stormwind Fallacy if you think it's appropraite, but I see it as a mechanic that gets in the way of roleplaying. Players trying to talk down an NPC barbarian about to rage? Well...they could actually say appropraite stuff IC to calm him down...or just say something like "Calm down" and ask for a diplomacy check. :smallannoyed:

Think a situation wouldn't be solved with diplomacy? Doesn't matter. Tack a huge penalty, then you end up with one of two scenarios.
1: Players still make it - In which case the penalty is pointless and the players can use dipomacy to overcome every challenge there.
2: Players, even if putting appropraite ranks in the skill and possibly adding to it (say...via skill focus or a PrC) can't make the check...in which case, what's the point in having it?

@OP If you want to do things like talk down goblins in a dungeon...if it were up to me, I'd say just try it and don't bother using the diplomacy rules. Even if you do like the mechanical idea of diplomacy the actual RAW needs alot of work.

It's all about trying to find a system that will provide some balance. I don't want to say "diplomacy will never work", but then I don't want to say "you can talk everyone down" either. Particularly since I feel like I already cater to the less combat oriented characters a bit too much. I have a 50-50 split between players that are mostly RP and players that are mostly combat.

And fyi as a somewhat introverted nerd I REALLY hate when the dm makes me rp the entire encounter instead of letting me roll for it. My ideal situation: I say "I flirt with the shopkeeper a little and ask if he could *please* lower the prices just a little" and roll diplomacy. I don't want to have to rp out the whole scene because I simply can't do it, and it blocks me from realistically playing any sort of diplomatic or charming character.



That could be fine if this wasn't the sixtieth time this campaign diplomacy was attempted, and if the players weren't in fact /holding his phylactery/ and trying to simply use it to bargain with him. I mean, the Lich can go take a few more centuries to work on his goal if he has his phylactery back, so you'd think he'd be more accepting.


I suppose, generally speaking, I have the same problem of 'diplomacy doesn't do anything'. If your party likes talking to everything, put them in more diplomatic situations - that's apparantly what they like doing - or at least places where diplomacy has a minor but not battle-ending effect. Plan for it, rather than against it.

...

If you don't want people talking to things in your games, say that, like that. I personally like people using words a lot more than thugging my way through everything that moves, but I'd at least be happier if the DM expressly told everyone at the beginning of the campaign that talking has no purpose.


My problem is more that half my party likes talking to everything and the other half likes smashing everything. I don't want to deny my smashers their share of combat, but I don't want to deny my talkers their diplomacy either.

ericgrau
2010-07-16, 04:34 PM
Diplomacy is actually one of the most broken skills in the game...
Only if you don't RP it. I'd let the PCs talk it out with the goblins first, and only if the goblins are willing to talk and aren't killing on sight. If it's an obviously stupid idea, then their answer is no. If the PCs have a good idea that the goblins may or may not be interested in, then roll a diplomacy check. If it's actually a trick you roll opposed bluff instead. If it's a "money or your life" scenario and the goblin is peeing his pants in fear, you probably don't need a diplomacy check. Then if someone pumps diplomacy so that neutral NPCs go along with every good idea the PCs have, then so be it. There's nothing broken about that, and that's how most skills work: potentially limitless success within a very narrow scope.

I think the talkers in your group will like that solution too, since it's more about what they say than the dice rolls. If you make dice rolls replace the role-playing entirely it will only ruin the game.

Ranos
2010-07-16, 04:38 PM
My problem is more that half my party likes talking to everything and the other half likes smashing everything. I don't want to deny my smashers their share of combat, but I don't want to deny my talkers their diplomacy either.

Well, if you want them to have a fight where no diplomacy can save them, there are a few things you can do. Planar bound minions. Mindless creatures. Creatures that are utterly mad (that can be fixed with a spell, but did they honestly prepare Heart's ease today ?).

There are creatures you just can't ever talk out of things. For the rest, when they just rush into combat without hearing anything out, have the smashers knock them out with nonlethal and then have the talkers do their magic. And use Rich's rules.

WarKitty
2010-07-16, 04:42 PM
Only if you don't RP it. I'd let the PCs talk it out with the goblins first, and only if the goblins are willing to talk and aren't killing on sight. If it's an obviously stupid idea, then their answer is no. If the PCs have a good idea that the goblins may or may not be interested in, then roll a diplomacy check. If it's actually a trick you roll opposed bluff instead. If it's a "money or your life" scenario and the goblin is peeing his pants in fear, you probably don't need a diplomacy check. Then if someone pumps diplomacy so that neutral NPCs go along with every good idea the PCs have, then so be it. There's nothing broken about that, and that's how most skills work: potentially limitless success within a very narrow scope.

I think the talkers in your group will like that solution too, since it's more about what they say than the dice rolls. If you make dice rolls replace the role-playing entirely it will only ruin the game.

That actually sounds somewhat workable. My problem isn't so much making them RP as making it so charisma and diplomacy matter. I mean, obviously no matter how well you describe your attack it still matters what you roll to hit, I would like diplomacy to be somewhat the same way.

Thankfully I have a very RP-centered group. (This is the same one that spent an entire session on dress and candy shopping.)

ericgrau
2010-07-16, 04:47 PM
Well, kinda like I said, the way I see it done is you describe what you say and then if the goblin ever says "Hmm", which is most of the time if what the PC said makes any sense, you roll diplomacy to see how he responds. If it's super obvious one way or the other then you don't roll it. And again use common sense. If you get a result of "helpful", it should be "helpful" in regard to whatever you discussed not "the goblin is now your lifelong buddy just because you have a pearly white smile and shifted your eyebrows a bit".

Watchers
2010-07-16, 06:22 PM
Remember, if you take out any mechanical Diplomacy roll, the character no longer matters a whit as far as diplomacy goes, and it is entirely the player.

Consider a situation where someone decided they want to play a charismatic Bard, because they are really awkward in real life and never able to say the right thing, get the girl, they always stutter, bad at thinking on the spot, etc. They decide they'd love to lay a character that is able to do all these things. Does it seem right to punish this player for playing a character that is different from himself? Should he be restricted to playing Cha 8 characters?

WarKitty
2010-07-16, 06:50 PM
Remember, if you take out any mechanical Diplomacy roll, the character no longer matters a whit as far as diplomacy goes, and it is entirely the player.

Consider a situation where someone decided they want to play a charismatic Bard, because they are really awkward in real life and never able to say the right thing, get the girl, they always stutter, bad at thinking on the spot, etc. They decide they'd love to lay a character that is able to do all these things. Does it seem right to punish this player for playing a character that is different from himself? Should he be restricted to playing Cha 8 characters?

Hence why I'm *not* considering that. :smallbiggrin:

I've had a DM do that to me, was trying to play a charming courtesan sorceress in a very rp-oriented game. Granted that was a fairly new player on his very first time DM'ing...the game had a lot of flaws.

Watchers
2010-07-16, 06:57 PM
Hence why I'm *not* considering that. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I got that from your posts. It was mainly directed at those who advocate taking the mechanics of Diplomacy out of the game entirely.

ericgrau
2010-07-16, 08:13 PM
Eh I don't think anyone's trying to remove the skill check entirely. Some are advocating different DCs, others new mechanics and others including myself are suggesting RP before the roll.

WarKitty
2010-07-16, 08:24 PM
Eh I don't think anyone's trying to remove the skill check entirely. Some are advocating different DCs, others new mechanics and others including myself are suggesting RP before the roll.

I actually like the RP before the roll thing.

The diplomacy/charisma debate has been done over several times. Basically, one group tends to think that diplomacy checks/charisma rolls should be eliminated because they discourage roleplaying; the other group tends to think this penalizes the lest diplomatic/charismatic player because they can't play a diplomatic/charismatic character.

Volomon
2010-07-16, 08:39 PM
Well I just got back from the adventure, and met the stone wall of DM doesn't know what he's doing. First we run into a room about 30x50 entering from the north, some how there is a blind spot to the direct west of the entrance (this is a perfect square room), granted we didn't say we looked around but come on? Really, we are sneaked upon by two skeletons?

5 seconds before this though there were 18 goblins, then they disappeared, because he wasn't sure what was there. Before he could figure out what was there originally I attempted a diplomacy check, now since these goblins live harmoniously with the Kobolds (which I don't get how that means they are allied, a bear can live harmoniously with cockroaches doesn't mean they are friends.

So any attempt at Diplomacy is meant with negative results despite rolling a 26 on my first attempt. Nah...nothing happens, apparently they are just mindless goblins.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-16, 11:41 PM
Well I just got back from the adventure, and met the stone wall of DM doesn't know what he's doing. First we run into a room about 30x50 entering from the north, some how there is a blind spot to the direct west of the entrance (this is a perfect square room), granted we didn't say we looked around but come on? Really, we are sneaked upon by two skeletons?

5 seconds before this though there were 18 goblins, then they disappeared, because he wasn't sure what was there. Before he could figure out what was there originally I attempted a diplomacy check, now since these goblins live harmoniously with the Kobolds (which I don't get how that means they are allied, a bear can live harmoniously with cockroaches doesn't mean they are friends.

So any attempt at Diplomacy is meant with negative results despite rolling a 26 on my first attempt. Nah...nothing happens, apparently they are just mindless goblins.

Well, maybe these specific goblins really DO live harmoniously with the kobolds, and they're not going along with you because they happen to like their neighbors. Maybe they are, in fact, formally allied. Then the DM is justified in having your 26 fail, since you're basically asking them to help you screw over their friends in a possibly-lethal manner.

On the other hand, the rest of this story seems to indicate somewhat poor GMing, so maybe everything I said in the previous paragraph is incorrect, and your GM just said it failed because he wanted you to fight them. You'd really have to know what was going on behind the screen to make this call.


That could be fine if this wasn't the sixtieth time this campaign diplomacy was attempted, and if the players weren't in fact /holding his phylactery/ and trying to simply use it to bargain with him. I mean, the Lich can go take a few more centuries to work on his goal if he has his phylactery back, so you'd think he'd be more accepting.


Okay, well, obviously you let the players make the check if they actually have leverage. You are completely correct. My example was for a situation where the characters have no leverage. If the lich would, plausibly, listen to them, then the players get to roll a check. If there's no way for them to succeed, which shouldn't come up all that often, then you just let them roll and say it doesn't work. The majority of the time, I agree with you, Diplomacy should do something. (And, in my games, it usually does... I had a campaign last year where the players thought that the bard was overpowered because he managed to solve so many problems with Diplomacy.)

Volomon
2010-07-17, 12:42 AM
Well, maybe these specific goblins really DO live harmoniously with the kobolds, and they're not going along with you because they happen to like their neighbors. Maybe they are, in fact, formally allied. Then the DM is justified in having your 26 fail, since you're basically asking them to help you screw over their friends in a possibly-lethal manner.

On the other hand, the rest of this story seems to indicate somewhat poor GMing, so maybe everything I said in the previous paragraph is incorrect, and your GM just said it failed because he wanted you to fight them. You'd really have to know what was going on behind the screen to make this call.



Okay, well, obviously you let the players make the check if they actually have leverage. You are completely correct. My example was for a situation where the characters have no leverage. If the lich would, plausibly, listen to them, then the players get to roll a check. If there's no way for them to succeed, which shouldn't come up all that often, then you just let them roll and say it doesn't work. The majority of the time, I agree with you, Diplomacy should do something. (And, in my games, it usually does... I had a campaign last year where the players thought that the bard was overpowered because he managed to solve so many problems with Diplomacy.)

Well this is the issue, I made a new post of the gaming event in a new thread called New DM frustations, and I think reading that would give you a clearer picture. Also in the adventure which I looked over at one point you can get a +7 toward diplomacy with Goblins.

Also this is how it was explained to me (I wasn't present for the previous session), some goblins were practicing with their bows. Well the door you use to enter the room apparently has the bulleye on it (most likely it was just improperly explained read thread New DM Frustration to figure out what I mean). So the party at that time decided to attack these goblins who had arrows pointed at them and firing at them. Well these goblins (dead) somehow relayed the fact that they died by PC hands to the rest of the goblins hence no diplomacy.