PDA

View Full Version : Influencing Party Members



jmt11190
2007-06-05, 07:30 PM
A while back, the group I was in was tracking a bandit that we had been following for a long time. My old character had died and my new character, a ninja, was being introduced. My DM worked with me so that I could be introduced into the party without a lot of "Here I am, though we have never met, let's be friends, and kill stuff together".

The way that I was being introduced was that, I was hired by a businessperson to help guide the party to a destination. Once I found the group, I would lead them to a cave where I would get further instructions. I was paid in advance and I went off to find the group. I was a tracker and found them at night gathered around a fire. After a funny entrance, of tree hopping, rolling a 1 and falling in the fire, the party, though suspicious, accepted me. I lead the group to the cave and it was at that point that a programmed image, declared that it was trap… blah blah blah… we would not leave alive…ect. A bunch of dragons flew in, and after a long battle, we won. However, two of the four PC’s in the group, thought that I had orchestrated the attack, that I had double-crossed them. In truth, I was double-crossed, but I had to convince them of this. I tried to make a diplomacy check and, as luck would have it, I rolled a natural 20. However, the angry PC’s declared that PC’s are freethinking characters that can accept or ignore any argument that comes to them. Thus, after seeing how my actions nearly killed them, I was the enemy and they killed me.

My question is whether, PC’s can be influenced by the Diplomacy and Intimidate checks. Each arguments make sense, PC’s have free will, and, as normal people can think and react as they wish, no matter what outside influence is pressed upon them. However, these checks represent how convincing an agreement is to the listener. The natural 20 is just that, though shear luck, you are very convincing. According to the rules in the PH, a raging NPC can be converted into an avid follower after a 2-minute conversation, but PC influence is never brought up. Who is right, can PC’s be forced to follow a course of action, because a DC was met?

sikyon
2007-06-05, 07:42 PM
A while back, the group I was in was tracking a bandit that we had been following for a long time. My old character had died and my new character, a ninja, was being introduced. My DM worked with me so that I could be introduced into the party without a lot of "Here I am, though we have never met, let's be friends, and kill stuff together".

The way that I was being introduced was that, I was hired by a businessperson to help guide the party to a destination. Once I found the group, I would lead them to a cave where I would get further instructions. I was paid in advance and I went off to find the group. I was a tracker and found them at night gathered around a fire. After a funny entrance, of tree hopping, rolling a 1 and falling in the fire, the party, though suspicious, accepted me. I lead the group to the cave and it was at that point that a programmed image, declared that it was trap… blah blah blah… we would not leave alive…ect. A bunch of dragons flew in, and after a long battle, we won. However, two of the four PC’s in the group, thought that I had orchestrated the attack, that I had double-crossed them. In truth, I was double-crossed, but I had to convince them of this. I tried to make a diplomacy check and, as luck would have it, I rolled a natural 20. However, the angry PC’s declared that PC’s are freethinking characters that can accept or ignore any argument that comes to them. Thus, after seeing how my actions nearly killed them, I was the enemy and they killed me.

My question is whether, PC’s can be influenced by the Diplomacy and Intimidate checks. Each arguments make sense, PC’s have free will, and, as normal people can think and react as they wish, no matter what outside influence is pressed upon them. However, these checks represent how convincing an agreement is to the listener. The natural 20 is just that though shear luck, you very convincing. According to the rules in the PH, a raging NPC can be converted into an avid follower after a 2-minute conversation, but PC influence is never brought up. Who is right, can PC’s be forced to follow a course of action, because a DC was met?

Well, they probably shouldn't get to see the roll, and the DM should be in charge of conveying exactly how convincing you are. Don't talk directly to them, talk to the DM and get him to talk to them.

Also, you can point out how their argument invalidates their int, wis and cha scores.

Lemur
2007-06-05, 07:57 PM
Diplomacy is something that only works on NPCs. The combat application of Intimidate can be used on PCs, though. PCs can use bluff and sense motive against each other, although this doesn't necessarily force characters into acting a certain way.

Arguably a PC could allow diplomacy to work on him, but the player of said character would set the DCs necessary to convince his or her character. To me this seems unnecessary though, as I see diplomacy as a tool to help the DM manage NPC reactions.

In any case, none of the social skills are there as a substitute for roleplaying. Rather, they exist to avoid metagame disputes that revolve around how characters would react to the actions or words of another character

So even if you could use diplomacy on a PC, you couldn't just jump in to rolling the check. Unless you actually said something to the PCs but omitted it in your story before rolling for diplomacy, I can understand their reaction in full.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-05, 08:07 PM
Usually it depends on the DM. Officially, the social skills don't affect the PCs, but some DMs use it as a guideline. You can never force a PC to react in a certain way, but you can get across the idea that a PC (or even an NPC, for that matter) is pretty convincing, that they seem trustworthy, etc. A good role-player will often go with that, separating character and player knowledge. Which the people in this example are already doing if their characters are suspicious of a player character.

The one set of social skills that can work for PCs as well as NPCs is bluff and sense motive, which, as long as the rolls are done in secret, has an objective meaning, either: you can tell he's lying, or he seems to be telling the truth. But, just to emphasize, if you know you're rolling a bluff vs. sense motive check, that kind of defeats the purpose.

doliemaster
2007-06-05, 08:33 PM
YES it does affect those little bastards, why else would NPC's even get diplomacy checks otherwise!? If I were you I would convince the DM to kills those little pricks, I MEAN they knew you were playing that character, why would you try to kill the party?

Merlin the Tuna
2007-06-05, 09:09 PM
Played completely straight, PCs aren't bound by the rules of Diplomacy. That said, it's good policy to use them as guidelines. If the party Bard gets a 50 on his Bluff check and I get a 3 on my Sense Motive, odds are I'll act begrudging about it, but accept the call of the dice. Similar situation here.

That, and the laws of not-being-a-**** says you don't attack party members except when absolutely necessary to do so. This was not such a case.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 03:20 PM
First of all, do remember that there are no automatic successes or failures with Skill Checks. A Natural Twenty is just a 20. Player Characters are not subject to the Diplomacy or Intimidation Rules:


Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

See also: epic usages of Diplomacy.

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. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.

Try Again
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.

Special
A half-elf has a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy checks.

If you have the Negotiator feat, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

Influencing NPC Attitudes
Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character, or wild empathy checks made to influence the attitude of an animal or magical beast.

As DSCrankshaw and Merlin the Tuna say, though, it's good form to take into account NPC Skills when roleplaying towards them, but not to the point where logic takes a back seat.

Out of interest, did the party have any other cause to think your Character was likely to betray them? Do you, for instance, make a habit of doing so with other Player Characters? Relying on the dice to have your Ninja convince his fellow party members of his innocence is pretty silly, though. Even when interacting with NPCs, the PCs should provide a reasonable argument to support the die roll.

dyslexicfaser
2007-06-09, 03:37 PM
I don't really see why PCs should be any different from an NPC in matters like these. If it works on everyone from kings down to cutthroats, why not adventurers?

That aside, though their conclusion that you betrayed them was pretty logical, they should have reacted in a way that allowed your character to go on living. Tie him up, turn him in to the proper authorities, beat him unconscious and leave him, I don't know... but not outright slaughtering a new PC.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-09, 03:48 PM
I don't really see why PCs should be any different from an NPC in matters like these. If it works on everyone from kings down to cutthroats, why not adventurers?



The reason Diplomacy doesn't work on players is game designers across all genres know that players hate to feel like they are not in control of their character. Diplomacy would get pretty annoying after awhile even if used by a good friend with good, rp intentions.

Most people are outraged when a Rogue in the party successfully Bluffs them.

JadedDM
2007-06-09, 04:38 PM
For those of you who think these kinds of things should apply to PCs, I want you to envision the following scenario:

Your party has made it to the Big Bad's lair and are about to engage in the final showdown--the biggest, climatic battle that will go down in your game's history.

"Lay down your weapons and join me!" the villain exclaims, pointing to the party. The DM then rolls a diplomacy check. It worked. The DM informs you that you must surrender the fight. You have no choice. He passed his check. THE END.

That's why they don't work on PCs. Because then the games would suck.

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-09, 04:40 PM
"Lay down your weapons and join me!" the villain exclaims, pointing to the party. The DM then rolls a diplomacy check. It worked. The DM informs you that you must surrender the fight. You have no choice. He passed his check. THE END.

Furthermore, you will be his closest allies and advisers for the rest of your natural lives.

Citizen Joe
2007-06-09, 05:03 PM
For those same reasons, Charm Person doesn't work on PC's either.

Saph
2007-06-09, 05:09 PM
For those same reasons, Charm Person doesn't work on PC's either.

What? Of course it does. PCs don't get immunity to mind-affecting abilities just by virtue of being PCs.

As I run it, Diplomacy, etc. can be used on PCs, but they work as well as they do on NPCs, ie with sensible houserules. They can't brainwash a person, but they can put the best possible spin on a situation.

- Saph

Rad
2007-06-09, 06:19 PM
Diplomacy does not work on PCs or on anything else; it is one of the most broken (and, fortunately, overlooked) rules in the game.
That said, if you rolled a good diplomacy check the players should act accordingly; the diplomacy check implies giving proof of your story, presenting it in a way that is satisfying to the listener and the ability to sweeten the whole matter down. All things that you cannot seriously expect the player to do. or at least not any more than requiring him to perform the acrobatic jump he describes every time she uses tumble.
Knowing that that ninja is a PC is metagaming, ant that is seldom any good; suggesting to kill the offending characters is also something bad: out of game issues (and bad rolegame or metagame IS an out-of-game issue) should never be dealt with in game and vice versa.

On the other hand a rule has been posted that says that, in d20, diplomacy is not usable with PCs, so, by RAW, they are right.
Note that this is something typical to the d20 system. Exalted, for one, has rules for social combat to regulate that kind of things. Having social mechanics influence the PCs really requires maturity and emotional detachment from the players (like never thinking of my character as "me" and the like) which is usually neither present nor sought in the majority of d20 groups, hence the "immunity" granted by the rules. If players would be mad at having their characters convinced by sweet-talkers, just rule it out.

Hope this helps

goat
2007-06-09, 06:57 PM
I think I'd have made them all roll sense motive.

The DM knew if you were telling the truth, but they shouldn't. Assign a DC based on how suspicious they've been of you so far and how avidly you're trying to convince them you weren't double-crossing (i.e. your diplomacy check (which I'd have had you roll un-named so it could have been bluff or diplomacy)), and then have them roll.

They won't know whether high or low means they should be attacking you until the DM tells them.

Assasinater
2007-06-10, 02:44 AM
I don't think PCs should bow down to diplomacy checks, but instead, PCs should talk accordingly to their diplomacy skill (which is RPing). What I mean is, for example, a player who is a good debater(by chance) should hold himself if playing a fighter with a low diplomacy score. Else would be metagaming. In the same manner, a barbarian with low int and wis cannot "think freely" as a player as how he wants and effectively put his own mental stats in the place of it's character. It's metagaming too (or not roleplaying, whatever). Yes, it's hard to suppress a good idea if you're playing a low int character, but surprise, it's a roleplaying game.

That put aside, I think those players are roleplaying real good, if they're trying to play a jerk.

TheOOB
2007-06-10, 02:54 AM
Diplomacy should never work on players, though at times I think it is fair to tell other players (remember, my character does have a +35 in diplomacy, at the very least he sounds convincing).

Intimidate likely can't be used to force the player to do anything, though their bonus should be taken in mind when the player decides their corse of action.

Bluff can't be used to make players do things, but they can be used to make players not see that you are bluffing, or create a distraction for hiding, or feinting.

Generally speaking, barring magic you cannot force a player to do anything, but you can use your skills to change what information they get or how they percieve things.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-11, 10:44 PM
For those of you who think these kinds of things should apply to PCs, I want you to envision the following scenario:

Your party has made it to the Big Bad's lair and are about to engage in the final showdown--the biggest, climatic battle that will go down in your game's history.

"Lay down your weapons and join me!" the villain exclaims, pointing to the party. The DM then rolls a diplomacy check. It worked. The DM informs you that you must surrender the fight. You have no choice. He passed his check. THE END.

That's why they don't work on PCs. Because then the games would suck.
In a situation like this, the bad guy is actually trying to convince the players that he's really the good guy, that he's the one who's in the right and they've been duped. Diplomacy doesn't represent "Do what I say," but rather "Here's why you want the same thing that I want." All the dice say is that, yes, as far as the recipients can tell, he makes a convincing argument. Whether the PCs find him convincing depends on the DCs, with the proper modifiers applied, and the appropriate opposed rolls. I don't see any way this would be a single check. Whether the players are convinced depends on how well the DM can roleplay the interaction. Again, the diplomacy rolls are guidelines for the players. No player should be forced to do one thing or another through an NPC's diplomacy. But by letting themselves be guided by the rolls, it could end up being a great way to change the nature of the campaign. Convincing the PCs to change sides is a great twist, and could either be played straight (the one they thought was the bad guy is really the one on the side of truth and justice) or twisted (they're being played for fools). It's a cool way to use a BBEG who invested a lot in social skills rather than fighting skills.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 12:50 PM
Sure, but I think that's what JadedDM is saying. Regardless, the way the RAW stands, NPCs cannot use Diplomacy to change the attitudes of Player Characters.

Ditto
2007-06-13, 04:14 PM
The balance has been stated repeatedly above: Yes, Diplomacy cannot compute outcomes vs. PCs with a diceroll. But Diplomacy should have some influence over the metagame 'persuasiveness' of a character's argument. If a good-faith effort has been made to explain the situation, then the opponent player should listen to reason. Otherwise, you're stating that your character (the opponent, that is, so 'The Party' in this story) would have killed the ninja even if your God came down and swore that the ninja was, in fact, double crossed. If you are open to having your mind changed by an argument, then Diplomacy reflects a good argument being made. Players shouldn't ignore the spirit of the mechanic just because they don't have to follow the crunch of it.

Matthew
2007-06-13, 04:24 PM
Yes, as I said above when I quoted the rule, it's good form to take that into account. It is not, however, RAW.

Tobrian
2007-06-13, 09:02 PM
(snip) My old character had died and my new character, a ninja, was being introduced. My DM worked with me so that I could be introduced into the party without a lot of "Here I am, though we have never met, let's be friends, and kill stuff together".

(snip) However, two of the four PC’s in the group, thought that I had orchestrated the attack, that I had double-crossed them. In truth, I was double-crossed, but I had to convince them of this. I tried to make a diplomacy check and, as luck would have it, I rolled a natural 20. However, the angry PC’s declared that PC’s are freethinking characters that can accept or ignore any argument that comes to them. Thus, after seeing how my actions nearly killed them, I was the enemy and they killed me.

*groan*
Well, your DM is partly to fault. Introducing a new PC as an outsider to the group, someone who either seems suspicious, or worse has some authority over them because some NPC says so, is poison for successful integration into the group. Yes, the idea presumably was "after they've killed monsters together, they'll be big buddies" but I've seen such things backfire before.

But those other players were acting like idiots, too. "PC’s are freethinking characters that can accept or ignore any argument that comes to them"?
So, player character have "free will" but NPCs don't? Please.

These players are metagaming. I've seen that type before and they can ruin a game session, especially a horror genre game; they refuse to have their character react accordingly to what their CHARACTER sees and hears; they simply flat out refuse to accept that their character may become frightened, indimidated, insane, impressed or awed, because they got it into their heads that this would diminish their phantasy of "freedom" of having total control over their character. What's next? A player refuses to note down damage when the DM tells him the character lost hit points, because only HE the player controls the character's fate?

I'm sure these players thought that in their mind they had a valid reason to flat-out refuse to believe the assassin, no matter how believable he seemed to their characters. Perhaps ironically they even felt that good roleplaying demanded it of them. Because by refusing to allow dice rolls to influence their characters' decisions, they'd painted themselves into a corner. Now their own arbitration was the only measure left to decide if their characters should believe the ninja story or not, and perhaps they thought that giving in "too easily" would look like they'd accepted the ninja just because they knew he was a PC and that would be metagaming. So instead they went to the other extreme and stubbornly refused to have their characters act as persons in their own right, which is also metagaming.


My question is whether, PC’s can be influenced by the Diplomacy and Intimidate checks. Each arguments make sense, PC’s have free will, and, as normal people can think and react as they wish, no matter what outside influence is pressed upon them.

Which is nonsense, because REAL people do NOT act/react in a vacuum of perfect detached cerebration.

Free will means being able to make choices, not having choices; mathematically speaking, the sum of available paths of action is (n [degrees of freedom] +1), with n being the number of choices. Doesn't mean that life is obligated to hand you choices that are all equally valid or appealing, however. And if n=0, all choices have been made for you, meaning all paths of action but one have closed... usually that last one is death. Even "jump or die" means you can technically chose between two actions, although most people would say that it's not really much of a choice. Oh well.


However, these checks represent how convincing an agreement is to the listener. The natural 20 is just that, though shear luck, you are very convincing. (snip)

I agree 100%.


First of all, do remember that there are no automatic successes or failures with Skill Checks. A Natural Twenty is just a 20. Player Characters are not subject to the Diplomacy or Intimidation Rules:
Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

Well, technically there's nothing in the rules for Intimidation that stops it from being used on PCs.


The reason Diplomacy doesn't work on players is game designers across all genres know that players hate to feel like they are not in control of their character. Diplomacy would get pretty annoying after awhile even if used by a good friend with good, rp intentions.

Most people are outraged when a Rogue in the party successfully Bluffs them.

All groups I've played or DMed in never had any problem with NPCs using their diplomacy skill on PCs, or PCs fast-talking or bluffing each other, as long as players didn't get the feeling that the rogue's player is damaging against the group cohesion. d20 is the only system I know that has such a silly rule, and only because of one stupid sentence in the Diplomacy skill description. I bet roleplayers playing Vampire: the Masquerade, Changeling or any other more character-driven game would be astonished if anyone told them their characters were no longer allowed to use social skills on other players' characters.

At this point I don't give a rat's arse about what the d20 RAW says because it does not even make sense within the context of the rules.

Why is only Diplomacy limited this way by RAW, but closely related skills like Bluff and Intimidate are not? If certain players flip out when they feel they're being "forced" to have their character change his mind by persuasion, surely being threatened and bullied into obedience by another PC or NPC is more aggravating? I know it is to me, mostly because I can't retaliate, because then my PC would attack another PC which is forbidden by game etiquette.

I consider social skills like Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate as closely linked. Diplomacy skill is already an umbrella catch-all term for such things as persuasion, tact, etiquette, social grace, seduction, and political diplomacy. If diplomacy is defined as changing the attitude of others to your desired end, by rousing or calming their emotions, appealing to their prejudices or by manipulating their perception of a situation. Both bluffing and intimidation are simply variants of the diplomacy skill: one uses lying, the other threats.

Fine. Let's say neither NPCs or even other PCs cannot under any circumstance use Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate to influence a PC, because spoiled little whiny players would moan and bitch about how THEY control their characters' reactions, not the gamemaster. So why bother giving NPC bards, spies or monsters skill ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate at all? For that matter, why then do PCs have ranks in Sense Motive?

If social skills does not work on PCs, then by rights spells like Charm Person, Dominate Person, Suggestion, Geas, Command, Cause Fear etc should not work on them either. Any ability that a monster or spell has that says "make a Willpower check against DC x or become shaken/dominated/enchanted" becomes irrelevant. Dragon fear aura? Harpy's captivating song ability? Pff. Certainly being dominated by an enchanter or falling under a suggestion by a vampire must be a lot more annoying to players than merely being sweet-talked by a witty street bard?

But hey, if these people are so determined that the party's bard's or rogue's Diplomacy skill does not work on his fellow player characters, they should not get any benefits from the bard's bardic music either. Fair is fair.


Arguably a PC could allow diplomacy to work on him, but the player of said character would set the DCs necessary to convince his or her character. To me this seems unnecessary though, as I see diplomacy as a tool to help the DM manage NPC reactions.

In any case, none of the social skills are there as a substitute for roleplaying. Rather, they exist to avoid metagame disputes that revolve around how characters would react to the actions or words of another character


Diplomacy does not work on PCs or on anything else; it is one of the most broken (and, fortunately, overlooked) rules in the game.
That said, if you rolled a good diplomacy check the players should act accordingly; the diplomacy check implies giving proof of your story, presenting it in a way that is satisfying to the listener and the ability to sweeten the whole matter down. All things that you cannot seriously expect the player to do. or at least not any more than requiring him to perform the acrobatic jump he describes every time she uses tumble.
Knowing that that ninja is a PC is metagaming, ant that is seldom any good; suggesting to kill the offending characters is also something bad: out of game issues (and bad rolegame or metagame IS an out-of-game issue) should never be dealt with in game and vice versa.

On the other hand a rule has been posted that says that, in d20, diplomacy is not usable with PCs, so, by RAW, they are right.
Note that this is something typical to the d20 system. Exalted, for one, has rules for social combat to regulate that kind of things. Having social mechanics influence the PCs really requires maturity and emotional detachment from the players (like never thinking of my character as "me" and the like) which is usually neither present nor sought in the majority of d20 groups, hence the "immunity" granted by the rules. If players would be mad at having their characters convinced by sweet-talkers, just rule it out.

That bears repeating: A player and his character are NOT the same. A character exists within a game world and has to follow its internal laws, and social skills and Charisma attribute are part of this rule set. A player may define that his character's initial reaction is hostile or disbelieving, which raises the DC for any Diplomacy or Bluff check. But that's it.

Skill checks for social skills exist for a reason. A DM or player is not expected to act out live every attack roll, tumble check or bardic song, is he? If a character is far more charismatic, good-looking and persuasive than the player, it would be unfair to limit the player to his own acting skill. A diplomacy roll is a way to quantify just how well the character presented himself. Why should that only work on NPCs?


For those of you who think these kinds of things should apply to PCs, I want you to envision the following scenario:

Your party has made it to the Big Bad's lair and are about to engage in the final showdown--the biggest, climatic battle that will go down in your game's history.

"Lay down your weapons and join me!" the villain exclaims, pointing to the party. The DM then rolls a diplomacy check. It worked. The DM informs you that you must surrender the fight. You have no choice. He passed his check. THE END.

That's why they don't work on PCs. Because then the games would suck.

That is utter poppycock. Diplomacy does not work like a Dominate Person spell or Geas. But yes, sometimes you have no choice but to obey or die (see above).

So instead you would allow players to simply have their characters ignore anything they didn't like?

Let's envision the following scenes:

Player #1: That's the guy who screwed us over! I draw my sword and kill him!
DM: The nuns plead with you to put away your sword, and the Reverend Mother tells you that this man was attacked and left for dead by a doppelganger creature that took its place. The nuns can confirm that the man has been unable to move from his hospital bed the whole time. He is innocent.
Player #1: They're probably lying too! I push the nuns away.
DM: Roll for Sense Motive... (the player rolls)... your fighter Arnold is pretty sure they're telling him the truth.
Player #1: My character ignores them.
DM: The Reverend Mother tells you, "Don't do something rash that you will regret later, my son." She refuses to step aside and continues to talk to you in a soothing voice, appealing to your better nature. (rolls for Diplomacy) Natural 20! That makes 32 on the Diplomacy check.
Player #1: NPCs can't use diplomacy on PCs! I don't have to listen.
DM: Nevertheless, she is very persuasive, finding the right words even though an armed maniac is standing right in front of her. Grace under pressure. Do you really want to hit an unarmed nun? I thought your character is neutral good?
Player #2: Ok that's enough! My paladin steps in, maybe his fighter will listen to his pal, and my paladin has diplomacy, too! I tell him I'm not sensing evil on the guy in the bed, and really use all my charisma to persuade him.
Player #1: Nya nya, diplomacy only works on NPCs! You can't dictate my character's reactions with a die roll!
Player #2: Grr. Fine then. "Hurt the nun and I'll cut you down where you stand, Arnold." That clearer?
Player #1: (gulp)

or

DM: You are brought before the dread necromancer, bound and beaten. The villain's cold laugh echoes from the walls of the altar chamber as he brushes past his minions. His sentience cloak of blackness sends tendrils of smoke-like substance writhing through the air. You've heard tales of sacrifical victims who withered and died in agony when that cloak enveloped them to feed on their life essence. The very air seems to throb with the villain's power here in his lair. As he draws close, his unnatural aura of terror envelopes you. He smiles like a shark, cracks his knuckles and says, "Well, now, will you tell me what I want to know or do you give me the pleasure of torturing you first?"
Player: My character tells the guy to go screw himself.
DM: ... (sigh) Fine. Make a Will check. (rolls for the NPC's intimidation score)
Players: (rolls) A twelve, in total.
DM: Looks like your character is too frightened to say anything, let alone utter any insults.
Player: Pff. I'm not intimidated.
DM: What?
Player: I say when my character is intimidated or not, and I say he isn't!
DM: Look, this guy is chaotic evil, he has an aura of terror, and +16 to Intimidate.
Player: I don't care! I control my character's reactions, not some die roll!
DM: (sigh)


The balance has been stated repeatedly above: Yes, Diplomacy cannot compute outcomes vs. PCs with a diceroll. But Diplomacy should have some influence over the metagame 'persuasiveness' of a character's argument. If a good-faith effort has been made to explain the situation, then the opponent player should listen to reason. Otherwise, you're stating that your character (the opponent, that is, so 'The Party' in this story) would have killed the ninja even if your God came down and swore that the ninja was, in fact, double crossed. If you are open to having your mind changed by an argument, then Diplomacy reflects a good argument being made. Players shouldn't ignore the spirit of the mechanic just because they don't have to follow the crunch of it.

Amen, brother.

Matthew
2007-06-14, 05:17 AM
Well, technically there's nothing in the rules for Intimidation that stops it from being used on PCs.

Nothing explicit, no, though it does use the same language as Diplomacy and references it for 'further details'. The only thing missing is the bracketed phrase '(nonplayer characters)'. You could take that to mean that 'others' here includes Player Characters, but since the phrase appears to be an explanation of the term 'others' and not an exception, it is reasonable to interpret 'others' here in the same way. In isolation, one could read it as you say, in context I think the meaning is reasonably obvious.