Doctor Awkward
2014-10-20, 07:39 PM
So the new comic is up and there's a diplomacy joke in it.
And since most of the discussion in the official thread will no doubt revolve around how diplomacy in 3.0/3.5 is "teh brokenz" someone posted a link to Rich's Diplomacy houserule (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html). I'm new here so I haven't seen this particular article before.
Now I know that Rich is an accomplished author with actual game designer credits, and I am little more than a random guy on an Internet forum, but I also have nearly twenty years of table-top gaming under my (sizable) belt and there were a number of things about that article that really bothered me. Since its presence in the official comic thread is no doubt going to cause its viewings to go up, I wanted to point a few of those things, and here seemed like the appropriate place for rules discussion.
So Rich outlined his problems with Diplomacy as follows:
1.) It has a flat DC that is too low; a 2nd level bard turning a hostile character to indifferent is DC 25; seems "tough, but doable". But it's actually child's play. With a 16 Charisma, 5 ranks in Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Bluff (which grants a +2 synergy bonus), and 5 ranks in Sense Motive (which also grants a +2 synergy bonus), and (new in 3.5!) 5 ranks of Knowledge (nobility) (which yes, ALSO grants a +2 synergy bonus), the 2nd level bard already has a +14 and only needs a 11 or better to succeed. And that's without spending a feat on Skill Focus (Diplomacy) or Persuasive. Now here's the real problem: at 11th level, that same bard will have 9 more ranks in Diplomacy and probably at least an extra +1 from Charisma; he can now succeed on a roll of 1, which means he doesn't have to roll. He can automatically turn all hostile people indifferent by talking to them. He has 9 more levels of adventuring before he goes epic, but he can already make every enemy he meets apathetic to his existence.
Well, he's right about the skill ranks, but wrong on almost everything else. Firstly, Persuasive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#persuasive) doesn't apply here. What he meant to say was Negotiator (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#negotiator). Secondly, in order to change someone's attitude with Diplomacy, you need a full uninterrupted minute (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm#action). They even clarify this in parentheses as 10 consecutive full-round actions. This equates to you doing nothing but standing there conversing while you give whatever thing or (group of things) ten full combat rounds to pound yours, or your party's, face in, at the end of which you get to roll your check. If they haven't turned you into a gooey paste by that point then it's probable the party could have easily overpowered them without having to talk to them. Now by RAW you can certainly restrain them, and then talk them into being your best friends, but you still run into the problem of needing to overpower them first. Of course you have the option of making a rushed check as a full-round action... at a -10 penalty of course, which gives the level 9 bard a 50% chance of success, and the level 2 bard about a zero percent chance. Thirdly, to even be allowed to make the check you have to have some means of reliably communicating your intentions to the other party (such as speaking their language). The description also specifically calls out Wild Empathy for animals and magical beasts.
2.) Which leads to my second beef: there is no discrepancy between targets. Making nice-nice to the evil overlord and sweet-talking the bean farmer who wants you off his property have the same DC under the current system. There is no way to resist the effects of Diplomacy; no saving throw, no opposed skill check, no level check, nothing. An indifferent epic wizard is as vulnerable to persuasion as an indifferent 1st level commoner. There's no such thing as a stubborn NPC under the current system.
This isn't true at all. The Check heading under the skill description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm#check) is quite clear on this, stating that, in negotiations, you roll opposed Diplomacy checks with the higher roll determining who has the upper hand (and probably the one who gets what they want). You also use opposed checks when presenting opposing cases to a third party. So attempting to negotiate with the leader of the gang that has you cornered is not a flat DC 25, it's your diplomacy against his. But what gang leader has diplomacy instead of intimidate, pick pocket, hide, or sleight of hand, you ask? I'd be more surprised to find a gang leader who regularly deals with negotiations of all kinds to have no ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive at all.
3.) The "patch" for the last two complaints is often the belief that the DM should apply circumstance penalties as he sees fit. My problem with this is without any guide as to what those penalties should be, it basically boils down to the DM thinking, "Do I want to give them such a huge penalty that they can't succeed, or not?" But I rarely have a preference. I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.
The guidelines in question are clearly spelled out when they first start talking about how to use skills, under Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#favorableAndUnfavorableConditions) . Most circumstances call for a +/-2, and you generally use increments of 2 when you feel the situation calls for it. Once you are out of auto-success/fail territory, each of those increments is a 10% adjustment to their chance of success. As a DM you have the advantage of seeing their character sheets. If you know your player will have an 80% chance of succeeding at getting the baron to do what he wants, and you want it to be tougher. Simply apply a -4 circumstance penalty on account of him being in a particularly foul mood due to some other unrelated troubles. Now he has a 60% chance, and he can improve his odds with clever roleplaying by offering to do the baron a favor. If you want it to be virtually impossible to succeed, apply something along the lines of a -8 modifier due to the gang of bandits having successfully ambushed the party and outnumbering them 2 to 1.
4.) When the Diplomacy check succeeds (and it usually will, with those low flat DCs), the exact outcome is too vague. They have a new mood; great, what does that mean? In reality, it means whatever the DM says it means-which brings me right back to point #3.
Part of the challenge of being a DM is making judgments about the personality of a particular NPC. It falls under decisions you make when planning your session. No, you don't need to have the personal history of every single person you encounter, but you should have some general tropes you have in mind for how they will behave. At that point you just have to use common sense for how that person will act towards someone they like (or someone who failed at being liked). If one of your players makes a character that extensively uses negotiations, you should probably plan at least some of your session around the possibility that there will be some negotiations.
5.) And how far does that "mood" go? What is its breaking point? What if the PCs ask a ludicrous and overly-expensive favor of a "friendly" person? What happens? I want Diplomacy to be able to answer questions like this when I don't have the answers predetermined, and it cannot do that as it stands. I want to be able to say, "Hmm, you asked the Duke to give you a 5000 gp advance on your next adventuring fee…roll Diplomacy to see if he goes for it." Right now, it doesn't really work that way. In short, D&D does not make me have to decide on the spot whether the PC's sword strikes the target; it provides rules for determining that. Why shouldn't there be rules for determining what happens when you ask an NPC to give too much?
Again, this is where common sense needs to be applied. To quote a much more capable player than myself:
This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play this game strictly by the rules as written and you have an unplayable game. As the DM, you either wrote the session, or you are running a published module. In either case, you know exactly how any NPC that matters will react to an obnoxious or outlandish request, even for someone they like. And Diplomacy absolutely performs the above described function without having to change a thing (or would you like to imagine a Duke without any ranks in Diplomacy?)
6.) Oh, and it's too hard to really screw up. Anyone with the basic 4 ranks of Diplomacy one would take at 1st level and no penalty to Charisma is incapable of worsening anyone's attitude by accident. It should be a lot easier to blow it, I think, especially in delicate negotiations.
Er... well, yes. That's correct.
Ranks represent time your character has dedicating to practicing and learning the particular skill. Max ranks indicate they more or less chose to specialize in that thing. I can only hope he's not suggesting that characters who dedicate their lives to being good something should regularly run the risk of not succeeding at it.
A good general guideline to follow whenever you are considering adding a new rule or making a house rule is this: the benefits gained from adding or changing a rule need to outweigh the additional complexity of the new rule. Rich's proposed changes are... complicated. Very complicated. Despite his insistence to the contrary, they add an enormous list of considerations to each and every potential social situation. Evening remembering the list is a complication, if only to remember whether or not it applies. It's probably best to look at his reasons for wanting a new rule to determine if a change is even necessary. Fortunately, he very helpfully provided those with his design objectives:
1.) I only worry about characters who invest in Diplomacy. Sure, fighters will occasionally be stuck having to talk their way out of something, but the system needs to work the right way for those who put max ranks in the skill and have a decent Charisma bonus. After all, combat values are derived from the best case scenario, the fighter, not the wizard. This is, in fact, one of the flaws with the current system; anyone who spends a modicum of effort being good at it, breaks it.
2.) In 3rd Edition, Diplomacy is defined as "Making people like you." I want to change that definition, for I think it lacks depth and is poorly understood. In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them." The idea is that anything you need to ask another person can be phrased in the form of a trade-even if you are offering "nothing" on one end of that trade, or something very abstract.
3.) A diplomat PC asking a stranger of equal level and Wisdom of 10 to accept a deal with an even risk-vs.-reward ratio should need to roll a 10 on the die to succeed. This is my numerical starting point, and I will proceed in both directions from there.
Well number one is more or less taken care of, in that negotiations are currently a matter of one person's diplomacy against the other's, and a character without ranks in diplomacy simply rolls a Charisma check. This also covers number two, since there are already rules for Diplomacy handling direct negotiating and negotiations with a third party.
So let's take a look at number three:
A second level diplomat (let's use the bard from point number 1 above) is requesting a favor from a local lord (a second level aristocrat). The bard is asking for some information, which the baron knows and could freely give at no risk to himself, if he were so inclined. The bard (being a bard) is incredibly charismatic (16), and a practiced diplomat to boot, and knows more than his share of tricks (full synergy bonus), thus giving him has a +14 to his Diplomacy check. The baron has 5 ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Knowledge Nobility as a matter of station, but let's say only a 12 charisma, and the Negotiator feat. This gives him a total check of +12. As the bard is a complete stranger, their opposed check means the odds at the bard getting what he wants are about 60/40, favoring the bard.
Well, says the player, let me spend some time chatting him up first and getting to know him, maybe play him a song, I can hit that 15 to improve him to friendly without rolling, if not, get him right to helpful. Sorry, you reply, the baron is a busy man and doesn't have that kind of time to spare. Make your case, and do it quickly. If you want it to be an even 50/50 or harder you can apply a circumstance penalty as you like, such as the baron being prejudice against the nation the bard hails from, or against the bard's race.
So at normal levels of play the system can function pretty effectively without any changes at all.
Now given high optimization, I will concede it's quite simple to hit those rushed diplomacy checks, effectively talking your way out of a great majority of situations. A large majority of those can be solved by applying common sense and simply telling the player, "No, your target is hostile, perceives himself as having every advantage in this situation, and has no reason to listen to anything you have to say. You cannot alter his attitude with diplomacy right now. After a few rounds of combat, there's a fair chance he might be more amenable to discuss it rationally" (as opposed to getting killed).
For all other situations, a common house rule at our table is simply this: You cannot use Diplomacy any time your target feels threatened by you.
This means if you are in combat and want to talk your way out of it, first you have to lay down arms. The wizard has to stop casting, the fighter has to stop fighting, and the rogue has to stop stabbing. At high optimization, even one round of opening your throat to the enemy runs an enormous risk of getting you killed.
Now I'm not saying Rich's rule is any kind of terrible, or that you're dumb if you like it and want to use it. I'm just saying if his rule makes sense to you, then you might have not been using Diplomacy the way the designers wrote it to be used.
Well if anyone's still with me after all of that, thanks for reading. Hopefully some of this helps you at the gaming table a little bit, and provides some insight you might not have had before.
And since most of the discussion in the official thread will no doubt revolve around how diplomacy in 3.0/3.5 is "teh brokenz" someone posted a link to Rich's Diplomacy houserule (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html). I'm new here so I haven't seen this particular article before.
Now I know that Rich is an accomplished author with actual game designer credits, and I am little more than a random guy on an Internet forum, but I also have nearly twenty years of table-top gaming under my (sizable) belt and there were a number of things about that article that really bothered me. Since its presence in the official comic thread is no doubt going to cause its viewings to go up, I wanted to point a few of those things, and here seemed like the appropriate place for rules discussion.
So Rich outlined his problems with Diplomacy as follows:
1.) It has a flat DC that is too low; a 2nd level bard turning a hostile character to indifferent is DC 25; seems "tough, but doable". But it's actually child's play. With a 16 Charisma, 5 ranks in Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Bluff (which grants a +2 synergy bonus), and 5 ranks in Sense Motive (which also grants a +2 synergy bonus), and (new in 3.5!) 5 ranks of Knowledge (nobility) (which yes, ALSO grants a +2 synergy bonus), the 2nd level bard already has a +14 and only needs a 11 or better to succeed. And that's without spending a feat on Skill Focus (Diplomacy) or Persuasive. Now here's the real problem: at 11th level, that same bard will have 9 more ranks in Diplomacy and probably at least an extra +1 from Charisma; he can now succeed on a roll of 1, which means he doesn't have to roll. He can automatically turn all hostile people indifferent by talking to them. He has 9 more levels of adventuring before he goes epic, but he can already make every enemy he meets apathetic to his existence.
Well, he's right about the skill ranks, but wrong on almost everything else. Firstly, Persuasive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#persuasive) doesn't apply here. What he meant to say was Negotiator (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#negotiator). Secondly, in order to change someone's attitude with Diplomacy, you need a full uninterrupted minute (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm#action). They even clarify this in parentheses as 10 consecutive full-round actions. This equates to you doing nothing but standing there conversing while you give whatever thing or (group of things) ten full combat rounds to pound yours, or your party's, face in, at the end of which you get to roll your check. If they haven't turned you into a gooey paste by that point then it's probable the party could have easily overpowered them without having to talk to them. Now by RAW you can certainly restrain them, and then talk them into being your best friends, but you still run into the problem of needing to overpower them first. Of course you have the option of making a rushed check as a full-round action... at a -10 penalty of course, which gives the level 9 bard a 50% chance of success, and the level 2 bard about a zero percent chance. Thirdly, to even be allowed to make the check you have to have some means of reliably communicating your intentions to the other party (such as speaking their language). The description also specifically calls out Wild Empathy for animals and magical beasts.
2.) Which leads to my second beef: there is no discrepancy between targets. Making nice-nice to the evil overlord and sweet-talking the bean farmer who wants you off his property have the same DC under the current system. There is no way to resist the effects of Diplomacy; no saving throw, no opposed skill check, no level check, nothing. An indifferent epic wizard is as vulnerable to persuasion as an indifferent 1st level commoner. There's no such thing as a stubborn NPC under the current system.
This isn't true at all. The Check heading under the skill description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm#check) is quite clear on this, stating that, in negotiations, you roll opposed Diplomacy checks with the higher roll determining who has the upper hand (and probably the one who gets what they want). You also use opposed checks when presenting opposing cases to a third party. So attempting to negotiate with the leader of the gang that has you cornered is not a flat DC 25, it's your diplomacy against his. But what gang leader has diplomacy instead of intimidate, pick pocket, hide, or sleight of hand, you ask? I'd be more surprised to find a gang leader who regularly deals with negotiations of all kinds to have no ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive at all.
3.) The "patch" for the last two complaints is often the belief that the DM should apply circumstance penalties as he sees fit. My problem with this is without any guide as to what those penalties should be, it basically boils down to the DM thinking, "Do I want to give them such a huge penalty that they can't succeed, or not?" But I rarely have a preference. I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.
The guidelines in question are clearly spelled out when they first start talking about how to use skills, under Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#favorableAndUnfavorableConditions) . Most circumstances call for a +/-2, and you generally use increments of 2 when you feel the situation calls for it. Once you are out of auto-success/fail territory, each of those increments is a 10% adjustment to their chance of success. As a DM you have the advantage of seeing their character sheets. If you know your player will have an 80% chance of succeeding at getting the baron to do what he wants, and you want it to be tougher. Simply apply a -4 circumstance penalty on account of him being in a particularly foul mood due to some other unrelated troubles. Now he has a 60% chance, and he can improve his odds with clever roleplaying by offering to do the baron a favor. If you want it to be virtually impossible to succeed, apply something along the lines of a -8 modifier due to the gang of bandits having successfully ambushed the party and outnumbering them 2 to 1.
4.) When the Diplomacy check succeeds (and it usually will, with those low flat DCs), the exact outcome is too vague. They have a new mood; great, what does that mean? In reality, it means whatever the DM says it means-which brings me right back to point #3.
Part of the challenge of being a DM is making judgments about the personality of a particular NPC. It falls under decisions you make when planning your session. No, you don't need to have the personal history of every single person you encounter, but you should have some general tropes you have in mind for how they will behave. At that point you just have to use common sense for how that person will act towards someone they like (or someone who failed at being liked). If one of your players makes a character that extensively uses negotiations, you should probably plan at least some of your session around the possibility that there will be some negotiations.
5.) And how far does that "mood" go? What is its breaking point? What if the PCs ask a ludicrous and overly-expensive favor of a "friendly" person? What happens? I want Diplomacy to be able to answer questions like this when I don't have the answers predetermined, and it cannot do that as it stands. I want to be able to say, "Hmm, you asked the Duke to give you a 5000 gp advance on your next adventuring fee…roll Diplomacy to see if he goes for it." Right now, it doesn't really work that way. In short, D&D does not make me have to decide on the spot whether the PC's sword strikes the target; it provides rules for determining that. Why shouldn't there be rules for determining what happens when you ask an NPC to give too much?
Again, this is where common sense needs to be applied. To quote a much more capable player than myself:
This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play this game strictly by the rules as written and you have an unplayable game. As the DM, you either wrote the session, or you are running a published module. In either case, you know exactly how any NPC that matters will react to an obnoxious or outlandish request, even for someone they like. And Diplomacy absolutely performs the above described function without having to change a thing (or would you like to imagine a Duke without any ranks in Diplomacy?)
6.) Oh, and it's too hard to really screw up. Anyone with the basic 4 ranks of Diplomacy one would take at 1st level and no penalty to Charisma is incapable of worsening anyone's attitude by accident. It should be a lot easier to blow it, I think, especially in delicate negotiations.
Er... well, yes. That's correct.
Ranks represent time your character has dedicating to practicing and learning the particular skill. Max ranks indicate they more or less chose to specialize in that thing. I can only hope he's not suggesting that characters who dedicate their lives to being good something should regularly run the risk of not succeeding at it.
A good general guideline to follow whenever you are considering adding a new rule or making a house rule is this: the benefits gained from adding or changing a rule need to outweigh the additional complexity of the new rule. Rich's proposed changes are... complicated. Very complicated. Despite his insistence to the contrary, they add an enormous list of considerations to each and every potential social situation. Evening remembering the list is a complication, if only to remember whether or not it applies. It's probably best to look at his reasons for wanting a new rule to determine if a change is even necessary. Fortunately, he very helpfully provided those with his design objectives:
1.) I only worry about characters who invest in Diplomacy. Sure, fighters will occasionally be stuck having to talk their way out of something, but the system needs to work the right way for those who put max ranks in the skill and have a decent Charisma bonus. After all, combat values are derived from the best case scenario, the fighter, not the wizard. This is, in fact, one of the flaws with the current system; anyone who spends a modicum of effort being good at it, breaks it.
2.) In 3rd Edition, Diplomacy is defined as "Making people like you." I want to change that definition, for I think it lacks depth and is poorly understood. In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them." The idea is that anything you need to ask another person can be phrased in the form of a trade-even if you are offering "nothing" on one end of that trade, or something very abstract.
3.) A diplomat PC asking a stranger of equal level and Wisdom of 10 to accept a deal with an even risk-vs.-reward ratio should need to roll a 10 on the die to succeed. This is my numerical starting point, and I will proceed in both directions from there.
Well number one is more or less taken care of, in that negotiations are currently a matter of one person's diplomacy against the other's, and a character without ranks in diplomacy simply rolls a Charisma check. This also covers number two, since there are already rules for Diplomacy handling direct negotiating and negotiations with a third party.
So let's take a look at number three:
A second level diplomat (let's use the bard from point number 1 above) is requesting a favor from a local lord (a second level aristocrat). The bard is asking for some information, which the baron knows and could freely give at no risk to himself, if he were so inclined. The bard (being a bard) is incredibly charismatic (16), and a practiced diplomat to boot, and knows more than his share of tricks (full synergy bonus), thus giving him has a +14 to his Diplomacy check. The baron has 5 ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Knowledge Nobility as a matter of station, but let's say only a 12 charisma, and the Negotiator feat. This gives him a total check of +12. As the bard is a complete stranger, their opposed check means the odds at the bard getting what he wants are about 60/40, favoring the bard.
Well, says the player, let me spend some time chatting him up first and getting to know him, maybe play him a song, I can hit that 15 to improve him to friendly without rolling, if not, get him right to helpful. Sorry, you reply, the baron is a busy man and doesn't have that kind of time to spare. Make your case, and do it quickly. If you want it to be an even 50/50 or harder you can apply a circumstance penalty as you like, such as the baron being prejudice against the nation the bard hails from, or against the bard's race.
So at normal levels of play the system can function pretty effectively without any changes at all.
Now given high optimization, I will concede it's quite simple to hit those rushed diplomacy checks, effectively talking your way out of a great majority of situations. A large majority of those can be solved by applying common sense and simply telling the player, "No, your target is hostile, perceives himself as having every advantage in this situation, and has no reason to listen to anything you have to say. You cannot alter his attitude with diplomacy right now. After a few rounds of combat, there's a fair chance he might be more amenable to discuss it rationally" (as opposed to getting killed).
For all other situations, a common house rule at our table is simply this: You cannot use Diplomacy any time your target feels threatened by you.
This means if you are in combat and want to talk your way out of it, first you have to lay down arms. The wizard has to stop casting, the fighter has to stop fighting, and the rogue has to stop stabbing. At high optimization, even one round of opening your throat to the enemy runs an enormous risk of getting you killed.
Now I'm not saying Rich's rule is any kind of terrible, or that you're dumb if you like it and want to use it. I'm just saying if his rule makes sense to you, then you might have not been using Diplomacy the way the designers wrote it to be used.
Well if anyone's still with me after all of that, thanks for reading. Hopefully some of this helps you at the gaming table a little bit, and provides some insight you might not have had before.