How do you diplomacy?

[HMS Invincible]

I got into a debate with my player and alternate dm about how diplomacy rolls should be used.

Mine. I use the Giants homebrew ish that he posted in this forums. It helps explain to stubborn players how they failed and what they can do to try again. Before I used these rules, I get exchanges like. "I offer a copper piece and a piece of string for your horse. Rolls poorly.
No sir, that's a bad deal.
Player refuses to take no for an answer but doesn't offer better deal.

His: chat in character and offer a deal. Any time you mess up, you can roll diplomacy to take back what you said. This puts a lot of pressure on a player and it often means real life charisma outshine players who spend points on diplomacy.

How do you guys use diplomacy?
Note. He loves shadowrun while I'm a polygamer.

[Ryulin18]

I've always had the player talk first, make their statement / offer and then used what they said as an adjuster

bad examples
I will buy your castle for a piece of copper (-100 diplomacy)
I will make you a sub-par offer for your castle (-50)
I will make you a sub-par offer, but keep you in power (-20)
I will make you a an even offer (-0)
I have an army outside, if you don't sell it to me (+100)

It's a bit improvised, but it works

[Red Fel]

How do you guys use diplomacy?

With a broadsword. No, my Intimidate check is my Diplomacy check.

My personal policy is to reward good RP and player creativity. As such, if a player comes up with a really good argument in-character (and he's not reading off some pre-written notes, bad form old boy), I like to give him a small circumstance bonus. It won't be outcome-determinative, but it helps. Similarly, if he makes a complete twit of himself, I might give him a small penalty, although in all likelihood I'd prefer not to - I generally try to encourage good RP, not discourage bad. Sometimes discouraging bad RP ends up making people afraid of good RP, y'see, and I'd like to avoid that.

So, for example, in the illustration you gave, P1 wants to trade his copper and string for a horse. Before rolling Diplomacy, he gives an impassioned speech about his tragic reversal of fortunes, how he was once a great king but now finds himself reduced to poverty, his sick aunty several towns away, and how these are his only possessions, and how he promises to repay this saintly horse-merchant when he returns with aunty's inheritance. I like what I hear, and mentally tally a bonus. I tell him to roll for his negotiation. He rolls high, I add the bonus, and the merchant is moved to tears. Alternatively, he rolls low, even with the bonus, and the merchant pats him on the shoulder, says, "Better luck next time, kid," and sends P1 packing.

And no, you can't try again in my games unless something changes. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm):
Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.
I agree with this. Make your pitch, then make your roll. If you don't like the outcome, tough, come back tomorrow.

[Galen]

I have an army outside, if you don't sell it to me (+100)Strictly speaking, that would be Intimidate, not Diplomacy.

[Troacctid]

In this specific case you should just be using the Complete Adventurer rules for haggling: if you beat the DC, you get a 10% discount.

[Anlashok]

I use diplomacy to attempt to improve a character's attitude toward the diplomancer.

Not sure where this "roll diplomacy whenever you try to speak" house-rule came from.

[HMS Invincible]

I use diplomacy to attempt to improve a character's attitude toward the diplomancer.

Not sure where this "roll diplomacy whenever you try to speak" house-rule came from.

Life you're referring to my shadowrun friend then I dunno either. It's jow he runs talking in his campaigns. I gave up talking in both shadowrun n pathfinder because it never worked out. We ended up using intimidate or just physical means to solve our conflicts. Need information? Break in and steal the evidence. Did talking fail? Enhanced interrogate him. Etcetera. Both campaigns ended abruptly after a few sessions of this. His reason was he wanted to gm a team of professionals not a gang of thugs.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Roll the check first, roleplay the result.

If you've got important points that will help sway the result, then put them up front to the GM before the check, and we add them to the roll. But you act out the result.
It's fun to play a bad roll, but it isn't fun to have bad roll ruin your good speech.

[StoneCipher]

I use it somewhat like it's intended. I have the PC roll the check and roleplay their "diplomacy" the check will represent how open the NPC is to their diplomacy attempt depending on what the PC is trying to get.

[nedz]

Roll the check first, roleplay the result.

If you've got important points that will help sway the result, then put them up front to the GM before the check, and we add them to the roll. But you act out the result.
It's fun to play a bad roll, but it isn't fun to have bad roll ruin your good speech.

I like this approach and often use it myself, but it works better for characters with rubbish Diplomacy skills :smallbiggrin:

The problem with Diplomacy is well known: it's easy to break.

[BWR]

I prefer my players to make some attempt at roleplaying a situation. If they say something really stupid, it will have an effect on the roll. If they say something really smart, it will have an effect on the roll and they might not even have to roll for some things.
Still, worst come to worst they can roll without RPing it. There's a reason you have mechanics and that's to allow your character to do things you can't. Maybe you're really tired, maybe you've had a bad day and can't put in the effort to pretend, you're just honestly stuck: whatever, that's what the mechanics are there for. People IRL rarely have +30 modifiers to Convince People to Do Stuff abilities and expecting players to somehow roleplay that is absurd. I don't expect my players to show howt hey would fight their way out of the jaws of a megalodon or how they would actually create a magic item; I don't expect them to be as persuasive as Loki or clever as Coyote. As long as they can generally tell me what sort of approach they attempt, I'm willing to let the mechanics do the grunt work.
E.g. I will want something more than "I roll Diplomacy to get the king to do what we want".
"Your highness, can't you see we are trying to help you and your people?" *roll dice* is often enough.

[Trasilor]

As a DM, this is a big "it depends"...

If the player likes to role-play diplomatic scenes then we just play the scene.

I roll for reactions modified based on the PC's actions.

This is assuming the PCs are being honest and not trying to bluff their diplomacy rolls.

However, some players have a hard time with this - the person has a hard time articulating what their desire is.

At that point, I ask the player to either describe the scene or the intended goals a simply as possible and make them roll the diplomacy check.

The point is, I want to reward people who want to role-play their character while not penalizing people who have a hard time with these types of interactions.

[Trasilor]

So, for example, in the illustration you gave, P1 wants to trade his copper and string for a horse. Before rolling Diplomacy, he gives an impassioned speech about his tragic reversal of fortunes, how he was once a great king but now finds himself reduced to poverty, his sick aunty several towns away, and how these are his only possessions, and how he promises to repay this saintly horse-merchant when he returns with aunty's inheritance. I like what I hear, and mentally tally a bonus. I tell him to roll for his negotiation. He rolls high, I add the bonus, and the merchant is moved to tears. Alternatively, he rolls low, even with the bonus, and the merchant pats him on the shoulder, says, "Better luck next time, kid," and sends P1 packing.



Wouldn't that be a bluff check (assuming the PC is lying?). For me diplomacy is about argument/counter argument. Presenting facts and evidence to support your desired outcome.

[Red Fel]

Wouldn't that be a bluff check (assuming the PC is lying?). For me diplomacy is about argument/counter argument. Presenting facts and evidence to support your desired outcome.

Technically, Diplomacy is about influencing a person into being more favorably inclined towards you. Annoyingly, this overlaps substantially with Bluff, Intimidate, and Jump checks, and you can easily make the case that one should be substituted for the other.

[HMS Invincible]

I hate it when players try to deceive wo using bluff. But I understand why , they really should combine the two skills.

[Remmirath]

For Diplomacy as well as for Intimidate and Bluff, I have the roll simply determine how well whatever the character was saying managed to match their intentions -- how diplomatic, intimidating, or believable it managed to be. The player roleplays out whatever the character is saying (although I do accept saying "somethin akin to X" instead for diplomacy, since most people have little to no idea how to actually phrase things in a diplomatically masterful fashion), the roll is made and determines how well it worked -- or vice versa, depending on player preference; I don't care which order those two go in -- and then the NPC reacts accordingly. DCs, or at least set DCs, don't enter into it. I may have a DC in mind for what they're attempting to do, but there are some things that people simply can't be talked into or out of, and how difficult it is should depend heavily enough on the situation that I don't think even having a table of DCs is useful.

I use Diplomacy for influence, smoothing things over, and essentially any interaction that is intended to create a positive outcome for the character in question through speaking to another character while being truthful and not intimidating someone. Intimidate is used any time they are being threatening, and Bluff is used any time they are not being truthful. I only have people roll if they're something really riding on it, and it depends on how well they manage to make their case (or threaten, or lie, or whatever) -- otherwise they should just roleplay as normal without rolling anything.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Technically, Diplomacy is about influencing a person into being more favorably inclined towards you. Annoyingly, this overlaps substantially with Bluff, Intimidate, and Jump checks, and you can easily make the case that one should be substituted for the other.

Jump checks, really?

[Sir Chuckles]

Jump checks, really?

It's referring to the Jumplomancer.

[sideswipe]

It's referring to the Jumplomancer.

then he should have also said escape artist checks...... :smallwink:

[Extra Anchovies]

Jump checks, really?

Read... and believe. (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1141886)

ETA: Jumplomancer'd, but I gave the link.

[Troacctid]

That doesn't really count since Exemplars can substitute any skill for Diplomacy. You could just as easily have a concentrationplomancer, a survivaplomancer, an autohyplomancer, a decipherscriptplomancer, a useroplomancer, or a profession(siege engineer)plomancer. Their checks wouldn't be as good, but you could do it.

[Divide by Zero]

Players are often less charismatic than their characters, especially in the case of a party face. While the content of the speech should modify the result (a ridiculous offer is a ridiculous offer no matter how you frame it, but a sufficiently persuasive character might manage anyway), the delivery of the speech from the player should have no impact on the delivery of the speech from the character.

[HMS Invincible]

Players are often less charismatic than their characters, especially in the case of a party face. While the content of the speech should modify the result (a ridiculous offer is a ridiculous offer no matter how you frame it, but a sufficiently persuasive character might manage anyway), the delivery of the speech from the player should have no impact on the delivery of the speech from the character.

Internet ate my post. Tldr. I agree. But our gm insisted the face role play the corporate deal even though he equal newb. Since no diplomacy rolls were give , we got a crap offer. So we kidnapped people until we got a better offer. Campaign ended when the gm wouldnt budge on his diplo house rule and I refu to let our party get screwed in a deal.

[EisenKreutzer]

I'm halfway tempted to homebrew a social combat system for Pathfinder because of stuff like this.

The basic idea is that social encounters are treated like a sort of simplified combat. You'd have a social AC, possibly 10 + Cha modifier + Wis modifier + circumstantial bonuses determined right before the conflict.
Before a fight, you roll your highest social skill to determine how many "hit points" your argument has, or how difficult it is to win the argument against the opposition.

Then you'd roll a sort of social initiative to see who goes first. To attack you choose your "weapon," which would be a social skill, add any modifiers from gear, spells etc. and roll to hit is social AC.

Maybe a system like combat manouvers could be implemented as well, for things like trash talk, rebuttals and bluffs.

This is just an idea though, I have no idea how to design such a system.

[HMS Invincible]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com
Try this, 2nd post. It's what I use. You can add an x failures before y success rule. Add in some rolls/actions to heal away failures or give bonus successes.

[Deox]

Roll the check first, roleplay the result.


Nice idea. I think I'm going to muck around with it and see how it goes.

[EisenKreutzer]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com
Try this, 2nd post. It's what I use. You can add an x failures before y success rule. Add in some rolls/actions to heal away failures or give bonus successes.

Aaaaaaaaaand yoink!

[Phelix-Mu]

I usually rely mainly on the role play, and allow good rolls and character resource investment to modify that respectably without getting unhinged. The social aspect of social interaction is important, and I want there to be a modicum of role play to back up the massive simplification that is Diplomacy.

I also tend to eyeball DCs and results, since I am confident that I can do that without giving away the keys to the kingdom for free.

[Gwendol]

Roll the check first, roleplay the result.

If you've got important points that will help sway the result, then put them up front to the GM before the check, and we add them to the roll. But you act out the result.
It's fun to play a bad roll, but it isn't fun to have bad roll ruin your good speech.

That's my (our) approach as well.

[EisenKreutzer]

I usually rely mainly on the role play, and allow good rolls and character resource investment to modify that respectably without getting unhinged. The social aspect of social interaction is important, and I want there to be a modicum of role play to back up the massive simplification that is Diplomacy.

I also tend to eyeball DCs and results, since I am confident that I can do that without giving away the keys to the kingdom for free.

I'm a huge fan of more elaborate systems to represent social interaction, but not to the point of eliminating roleplaying.
The old argument "You don't have to know how to swing a sword to play a fighter" argument holds some merit, I think. Nobody demands actual combat knowledge from a player, so why should we demand advanced social skills and charisma? Having a solid system to back up the roleplaying can be a great tool. It works wonderfully in Burning Wheel, for example, without detracting from the actual in-character stuff.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm a huge fan of more elaborate systems to represent social interaction, but not to the point of eliminating roleplaying.
The old argument "You don't have to know how to swing a sword to play a fighter" argument holds some merit, I think. Nobody demands actual combat knowledge from a player, so why should we demand advanced social skills and charisma? Having a solid system to back up the roleplaying can be a great tool. It works wonderfully in Burning Wheel, for example, without detracting from the actual in-character stuff.

Have you tried the Exalted social combat system? Maybe the opposite problem (too intricate), but it is a profound contrast to the Diplomacy paradigm, and I really wish my players were just a bit more aggressive in their social characterization, because it would be a gangbusters setup with some really stellar role players. As is, it's just too clunky.

Worth a look if you haven't seen it, though. The stuff that can be accomplished through talking in Exalted is nothing less than mind-blowing, but you have to work at it much more than with Diplomancy.

[icefractal]

I use something similar to the standard Diplomacy rules. Which, notably, is not at all similar to "roll for success/failure". What the skill actually does is change people's attitudes. Then you say whatever you were going to say, and the target reacts to it based on their current attitude.

Someone that's helpful is going to be a lot more likely to accept your requests, and ask for less in exchange, than someone who's unfriendly. But it isn't the only factor - asking an indifferent person for something very reasonable with little cost to them is going to work better than asking a helpful person to do something ridiculous for no good reason.

One thing I do change is that there are a couple different uses:
* Convey Sincerity - Static DC, based on how unbelievable the thing you're saying is. Not opposed, in fact the target also makes a Sense Motive check and you use the higher one.
* Improve Attitude - Is based on the target's level, not just a static DC.

[HMS Invincible]

That's my (our) approach as well.

That only works if the player is comfortable with it. It's also important to be flexible due to players limitations and preferences. Having set known dc and modifiers keeps up DM pc trust . Especially for new players and dms

[Riculf]

The point is, I want to reward people who want to role-play their character while not penalizing people who have a hard time with these types of interactions.

I agree with this entirely. The idea of roleplay is to have the chance to be able to play characters you're not. :smallsmile: