needs some input on diplomacy

[olejars]

The group that I game with and I ran into a patrol looking for contraband. I'm playing the party face and I rolled a 42 with my diplomacy, more than enough to get indifferent npcs to get into friendly. My request to the patrol was to overlook our passing because we weren't carrying contraband (bluff roll 34). DM never rolled a sense motive check.

Long story short, hostilities ensued with us all being captured. Something similar happened like this a couple weeks ago. Does this sound like the DM is railroading us inspite of the dice?

[Sarco_Phage]

Yep.

Or possibly he had the guards in that unhealthy NPC state known as "bitchy", giving the DC a +30 modifier.

[person29]

Yes.

Unless for instance the guards knew for a fact you were carrying contraband...or had a higher up tell them to capture you guys...etc, if they were under specific orders to capture you then maybe your rolls wouldn't matter no matter how good they were.

However as im sure later posters will point out diplomacy as written is very very powerful...I don't play by it as RAW and instead just go with the flow of how things are going in my games

[Sarco_Phage]

On that note, why didn't you just slaughter em all? Since your minimum Diplomacy ranks are about 22, and I'd assume they're higher, your party's pretty high level.

EDIT: Unless you've been packing them bonuses...

[olejars]

Actually, my diplomacy is a 17 ranks, 12 with feats and synergies, and 6 for charisma. I had a bad roll. So a 35 with out rolling. *shrugs*

The group we were up against was a cleric, several pallys, a ranger, and the clerics trumpet archon.

[person29]

Actually, my diplomacy is a 17 ranks, 12 with feats and synergies, and 6 for charisma. I had a bad roll. So a 35 with out rolling. *shrugs*

The group we were up against was a cleric, several pallys, a ranger, and the clerics trumpet archon.

12 with feats and synergies?

+3 skill focus, +2 persuasive....what else? Im sure there are lots im forgetting

[Sarco_Phage]

Ah.

Ah.

Okay, yeah, not an easy fight. The DM is probably going somewhere with this though, and if those were indeed Pallies and a cleric, they were definitely sent out for some purpose, unless his setting involves paladins and clerics being used as pedestrian customs officers.

[person29]

perhaps there was a zone of truth, discern lies or something like that up and the DM made a secret roll for you?

[olejars]

We can use any 3.x material. Song of silence and BoED are nice to have.

On a side note, I guess I feel cheated for putting ranks into a skill being the face and not have it work in the crucial situations.

[olejars]

perhaps there was a zone of truth, discern lies or something like that up and the DM made a secret roll for you?

I said earlier, no roll was made during this by the dm, not even a covered/secret roll. He dms without a screen.

Edit: I would have been outside of Zone of Truth, and no spell was cast at me.

[person29]

I would talk to your DM about it if it seems to be a repeat thing...especially as it appears your character is built around it

[Greenish]

We can use any 3.x material. Song of silence and BoED are nice to have.

On a side note, I guess I feel cheated for putting ranks into a skill being the face and not have it work in the crucial situations.Rule of thumb - do not invest points into Diplomacy without first agreeing with your DM on how it works, since very few DMs are actually prepared to play it by RAW, and if your DM is just going to wing it, there's no point burning skill points (or rolling, for that matter).

Burlew, for example, has a neat houserules for diplomacy here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172910).

[aboyd]

Diplomacy is a "win button" and so most DMs will simply refuse to go along with it. By RAW they can do that, as they are allowed to add circumstance modifiers as they see fit, and thus can put you in un-winnable encounters.

So I agree with Greenish. You should have asked the DM about this. And now, you should be asking the DM about changing your character entirely, as it turns out your main skill doesn't work.

For me personally as a DM, I often set DCs very high, and/or add huge circumstance modifiers. If a player wanted to do something sneaky and reasonable, I'd be more inclined to do it. However, they rarely do. Here's an example:

Player: I tell the town guard to let in the drow & giant spiders. I got a... 42 on diplomacy, so he has to do it.
DM: Except that what you're asking for is absurd, and guarantees that the guard loses his job, and probably means everyone in town is at risk of death. So... circumstance modifier of -20. You don't make it.
Player: YOU SUCK, I HATE YOU!

If the players were more clever, they'd have a much easier time of it. For example, same goal of getting drow into town with a different approach:

Player: We pull cowls over the drow, and put the spiders into bags of holding. We have a few minutes before the spiders run out of air, right?
DM: Yeah, I think so, that's fine.
Player: Okay, we approach the guards. Is there a line for entry to town?
DM: Not right now. They look bored.
Player: I chat up the guard a little bit, see if either is friendly. I'll make a joke about how I hope they're well paid for this.
DM: The younger guard is far more friendly. He likes your joke and says, "Buddy, they don't pay me enough."
Player: Oh! I tell him to look me up when I'm in town, and I will happily buy a servant of the realm a hearty drink as a token of my appreciation for all he does. And how much was the entry fee? A copper per person? Well, I have 15 persons.
DM: The guard is scrutinizing the crew. They look suspicious.
Player: I try to divert their attention to me. I say that they're sick and I'm taking them to the temple. I take care of people. Just like I take care of my friendly guards, too. Hey, look at this. I have no coppers. Only gold. Would it be okay if I gave you guys 15 golds instead of 15 coppers? It's all I have, and these sick people need to get to their healer.
DM: I'll give you a +5 circumstance bonus for making things convincing, and you roll obscenely well, so it looks like the guards are buying this. They pull back from the crew, saying "Don't cough on me!"
Player: Muhahaha! Boys, we're in.

Why players never try to make things believable and easy for the guards to overlook, I don't know. But I think the players, too, feel that diplomacy is just a win button, and they want to press it and move on. I feel like that cheapens everything, so I fight it. I would give much more leeway to a player that was willing to be clever & dream up some awesome schemes.


12 with feats and synergies?

+3 skill focus, +2 persuasive....what else? Im sure there are lots im forgetting
He's probably got the standard cheese going -- half elf for +2, 5 ranks in bluff for another +2, 5 ranks in Knowledge (nobility) for +2, 5 ranks in Sense Motive for +2.

[olejars]

Ah.

Ah.

Okay, yeah, not an easy fight. The DM is probably going somewhere with this though, and if those were indeed Pallies and a cleric, they were definitely sent out for some purpose, unless his setting involves paladins and clerics being used as pedestrian customs officers.

More like border patrol. The nations, we were traveling through, patron diety was heronius (sp?). So complete LG. Apparantly divinations had been involved. Long story short our cargo made it safely whilst we made the diversion. Now as long as divinations aren't admissable in court.....

[olejars]

So as a DM, if a player was to jump over a chasm and you set the dc unreasonable high do you make them go jump over something IRL, or when a player attacks, do you make them swing sword?

I play table top rpgs to get away from life. I'm not elequent nor a smooth talker. But my character is. Should I really be punished by not having my dice rolls matter on a particular skill that I invested in because my real self can never measure up to what the dice say?

[Sarco_Phage]

Yeah, I'm with olemar on this one. It's all well and good to say "oh, I make my players roleplay skill checks", but some people aren't good roleplayers despite enjoying it. Are you going to punish them for that? This ain't basketball.

[Sacrieur]

Maybe there was an epic level paladin among them that could sense motive your bluff without trying, iunno. That and Clerics have all sorts of magic at their disposal and they are more than willing to use it to have peek inside your caravan.

[Greenish]

Yeah, that's an example of DMing where you probably don't want to bother to invest into the skill or even roll the dice.

[Sarco_Phage]

Your players are odd. Mine would have knifed the guards at the outset.

[NichG]

Yeah, I'm with olemar on this one. It's all well and good to say "oh, I make my players roleplay skill checks", but some people aren't good roleplayers despite enjoying it. Are you going to punish them for that? This ain't basketball.

There are a lot of players who enjoy role-playing but aren't good at, e.g., optimizing diplomacy scores. You're 'punishing' some subgroup of players no matter what you do, unless your table is homogeneous. It's a question of what you want the game to be about: how good you are at building a character, or figuring out what to do/say/how to use your abilities in various situations.

There's a middle ground, though it requires moderate homebrewing. If you have someone who wants to be the party face but is really bad at it, give them distinct mechanical tools to help them without reducing the interaction to a die roll. For instance, alter Diplomacy so that if they hit a certain DC they can take back and rephrase one thing they've said during that particular social encounter. For a higher DC, they can see the NPC's reaction to it first before they decide to take it back. Have a Sense Motive or Knowledge or even still Diplomacy check at a certain DC result in the player receiving one sentence of advice about how to behave in this particular encounter, or get one fact about personality of the person they're talking to.

[aboyd]

So as a DM, if a player was to jump over a chasm and you set the dc unreasonable high do you make them go jump over something IRL, or when a player attacks, do you make them swing sword?
Straw man argument. I require players make it plausible, so you suggest something wildly exaggerated, and attack my position from there.

However, I'll allow it. YES, I make my players actually swing swords. I have a cage that they step into, and it uses lasers to gauge the arc & momentum of the swing, giving it a mechanically exact score. I match that with a table of scores that indicate probability of damage, along with a small circumstance modifier for their description of how they engaged the enemy (as that may determine the plausibility of success). And then, voila, we have adjudicated the strike.

What's my point, aside from making fun of the over-the-top assumptions? It's this: some DMs, apparently yours, expect some effort put into the skill use. Simply rolling and expecting a result is considered, by this subset of DMs, to be "roll playing" rather than "role playing" and thus they have no truck with it.


I play table top rpgs to get away from life. I'm not elequent nor a smooth talker. But my character is. Should I really be punished by not having my dice rolls matter on a particular skill that I invested in because my real self can never measure up to what the dice say?
Ask your DM. If he decides to run his game that way, as I do, then you're screwed. In such a case, his opinion would be that yes, you should be punished for not having real life skills, and since it's his game, you're stuck abiding by that or finding a new DM. I'm not suggesting that he's right and you're wrong, but I am suggesting that he's a mis-match for you. Hence, this entire thread.


Yeah, I'm with olemar on this one. It's all well and good to say "oh, I make my players roleplay skill checks", but some people aren't good roleplayers despite enjoying it. Are you going to punish them for that? This ain't basketball.
If the DM wants to punish people who cannot role play in a role playing game, it kinda seems like you'll have a tough time breaking him of that opinion. People are all over the scale, from full LARPs to railroaded storytelling. You have to find your match. And if OP isn't happy with his match right now, he'll have to think hard about whether he can be happy there.

Let's not confuse two different aspects of this discussion. There is the discussion about whether we, as players, enjoy certain levels of role playing. We can all weigh in. There is a separate discussion, which is "why is the OP's DM blocking his good rolls?" We can certainly chime in with how much we dislike his style, but stating that we don't like it won't change it. And I wouldn't even agree that we could label his style of play as "wrong." It simply isn't something that works for some people here. So for this aspect of the discussion we need a different approach. That is, discover what the DM's motivations are, and then either take it or leave it.

For me, I'm working on that latter part of the discussion. I've provided a plausible reason that the DM is behaving as he is, and now I'd suggest that the OP consider it and either take it or leave it. I think whining about the DM and bemoaning his game as you play it is one choice that is very poor. I'd advocate against that.

[olejars]

I give you props for actually taking the extra step with my hyperbole, but my point still stands that I did attempt the role play accompanied with a decent roll. On a side note, I do LARP as well. So I'm no stranger to role play. As for the "bemoaning" of his game, I guess I just have a different take on the rules when I DM because we do rotate the responsibility.

As a DM, I've learned to roll with what the players I game with throw at me, even when it can potentially throw off what I was intending to happen.

[person29]

can i play in your games?

[erikun]

Perhaps the DM is just using some more reasonable diplomancy rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2).

I don't know what exactly happened, so I can't judge if what the DM did was "appropriate". Perhaps the DM pre-rolled, which is entirely valid. Perhaps the fact that a large party was wandering around where they weren't supposed to be, with the excuse of "We don't have any contraband!" was enough to make the guards turn them in. Without some idea of what the DM was thinking, I can't judge the situation accurately.

Regardless, ask your DM what is going on. If the DM is using some modified Diplomancy rules, then ask to see them. If you did something that completely ruined the Diplomancy check, then find out what it is and see if you can get some kind of warning next time - your character is skilled enough with diplomancy to avoid such obvious pitfalls.

If your DM will automatically negate any Diplomancy check you make, regardless of role, explain that doing so makes your character rather moot and see if you can re-train the Diplomancy ranks (which the DM clearly doesn't allow) into something relevant to the game.

[aboyd]

can i play in your games?
:smallbiggrin:

[Feldarove]

Your first example is an exaggeration...im guessing.

Here is what usually happens in games, at least mine.

Player: I'd like to get these drow and spiders in the city
DM: Well, you will have to get them past the guards
Player: Hrm...I roll diplomacy to get the guards to allow it.
DM: The guards are probably not going to allow it.
Player: you sure? I got a 42, they should be inclined to let me
DM: You tell the guards that you are taking the drow to the dungeon and claiming a reward for thier capture and they let you in.


See, if you have a player with a high diplomacy character, but they are an in-thier-parent's basement living, wow playing till 5 am, dnd on the weekends kind of guy (aka 7 cha)...the DM needs to help the player out.

You can't assume that your players are always going to have something clever for every situation.

They also might try to "help" out thier diplomacy or bluff check and it hurt them by the idiotic stuff they say. I have a player in our group who is very much like this. We reward his effort though, because we love to hear the crazy things he will say.

I can't imagine that players are actively trying to create terrible situations up vocally to then counter with high diplomacy rolls. If they are, then npc's should recieve +/- on opposing checks.

[Curmudgeon]

The group that I game with and I ran into a patrol looking for contraband. I'm playing the party face and I rolled a 42 with my diplomacy, more than enough to get indifferent npcs to get into friendly. The more interesting question, rather than your number, is how much time did you spend at this effort?
Action: Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. The DM can be strictly within the rules in adjusting the time required. An alert patrol may take (just guessing) 5x as long to convince. Did you ask the DM if your argument was being received poorly, or if those guards were distracted, or acting suspicious? These would have been indications that greater effort was required for your Diplomacy check.

My request to the patrol was to overlook our passing because we weren't carrying contraband (bluff roll 34). DM never rolled a sense motive check.
Since this was outside of combat, the DM could always have the patrol members "take 10" instead of rolling.

[Jack_Simth]

12 with feats and synergies?

+3 skill focus, +2 persuasive....what else? Im sure there are lots im forgetting

+2 Sense Motive synergy, +2 Bluff Synergy, +2 Half-Elf... where's the last point... possibly a Circlet of Persuasion, rather than half-elf?

diplomacy as written is very very powerful
It can be, but if you ignore the Epic skill expansion, there's something most people seem to miss about it: It doesn't influence actions, it influences attitude. My favorite example for the distinction is that of a player wanting to use Diplomacy on the prison guard to get out of prison.

Suppose the guard is:
Lawful-Good: You have made him friendly. He will take risks on your behalf within his personality. Which is, to say, he'll plead for you in front of his Lord (a risk to his reputation). However, he's not going to just open the door and let you out - that wouldn't be very Lawful of him. You do, however, have an Aid Another check at your trial (or, if he's got the better modifier, you've got a better check at your trial - and while he may not be particularly skilled, he's got decent circumstance modifiers for knowing his Lord and the local laws reasonably well).

Lawful-Evil: You have made him friendly. He will take risks on your behalf within his personality. Which is, to say, he'll slip you a vial of ingested Constitution poison for you to drink (or a small dagger and a chalice so you can slit your wrists in style, or a few feet of rope so you can hang yourself, or whatever tools are needed for the method of suicide he finds traditional) so you can end your life with your honor intact. However, he's not going to just open the door and let you out - that wouldn't be very Lawful of him.

Chaotic-Good: You have made him friendly. He will take risks on your behalf within his personality. Which is, to say, he'll slip you the key, tell you to wait an hour after the shift change, and see about convincing the next guard to enjoy a bottle of whisky with him. Although what a Chaotic guy is doing guarding a prison, I have no idea. Still, you traded a Diplomacy check for an Open Lock check, and some nice circumstance bonuses on your hide / move silently checks (by way of penalizing the other guard).

Chaotic-Evil: You have made him friendly. He will take risks on your behalf within his personality. At next feeding time, you find your more readily-concealed weapons (and only your weapons...) from the lockbox affixed to the bottom of your feeding tray. The door is also liable to be unlocked at that time. Although what a Chaotic guy is doing guarding a prison, I have no idea. Still, you traded a Diplomacy check for an Open Lock check, and getting your weapons to have a chance to break out the rest of the way on your own.

People between the extremes pick randomly from the closest ones (So a TN guy rolls a d4 and picks one in order listed above based on that; a LN guy flips a coin and either acts LG or LE; a NG guy flips a coin and either acts LG or CG, and so on).

In three of the four cases, investing in the skill helps - you're more likely to succeed in getting out than if you'd taken Craft(Dirty Jokes) for those skill ranks instead. You're getting exactly what the Diplomacy skill says you get (the Diplomancied guard is taking risks to help you). But it's not an "I Win" card ... if you ignore the Epic skill expansion, anyway (which is recommended).

Summary: The problem isn't with Diplomacy as written. It's that oh-so-many people read "Will take risks to help you" as "Follows orders like a good little robot".

[/rant] (for now, anyway)