The Gaming Den

With more charisma you dress look and act in a way which causes the bandit to perceive you as some combination of

--more dangerous
--more reasonable
--more attractive
--more competent

that makes them less gung-ho about skipping to the stabbing.

Reaction rolls are something for random encounters and that's it. It's fine if you want diplomacy rolls to handle that stuff, since they're random anyway. The orc looters you found in the ruins may not immediately want to kill you, and adding the random disposition is just another way to add something interesting to the idea of the random encounter (instead of just a straight up combat every time). And that's fine.

When diplomacy starts to seriously derail the world and logic when it becomes a problem. The villain doesn't make reaction checks. He's the bad guy, he doesn't like the good guys, that's set in stone.

Social skills in general should only work on minions and not any kind of named character. If you want to convince a named character to do something, you've got to convince them with real arguments IC, the same way an NPC could convince a PC.

Swordslinger wrote:When diplomacy starts to seriously derail the world and logic when it becomes a problem. The villain doesn't make reaction checks. He's the bad guy, he doesn't like the good guys, that's set in stone.

The problem is that many bad GMs who aren't even really trying to be dicks figure that because he doesn't like the bad guys, it's time to move on to the murdering.

What's the problem with a set of results that include "Hostile" and "Murderous"?

A Man In Black wrote: The problem is that many bad GMs who aren't even really trying to be dicks figure that because he doesn't like the bad guys, it's time to move on to the murdering.

What's the problem with a set of results that include "Hostile" and "Murderous"?

The problem comes with the idea that you don't want diplomacy to solve every problem. Diplomacy is a single character thing, and you don't want to make it possible to avoid all combat encounters because of a single PC, that's too much spotlight hogging. At the end of the day, diplomacy is just another skill, not an "I win" button.

People play a game of heroic fantasy expecting a showdown with the bad guy. That's a staple of the genre.

Dr. Swordopolis wrote:People play a game of heroic fantasy expecting a showdown with the bad guy. That's a staple of the genre.

You're undermining your point. The staple of the genre is to come into the room, not have combat start right away, have the different sides boast and intimidate at each other, and then get to the stabbing.

Meeting the BBEG should almost always give a Hostile reaction and almost never a Violent one. You know, if we're going for genre emulation.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: You're undermining your point. The staple of the genre is to come into the room, not have combat start right away, have the different sides boast and intimidate at each other, and then get to the stabbing.

Meeting the BBEG should almost always give a Hostile reaction and almost never a Violent one. You know, if we're going for genre emulation.

That's fine, but that case isn't about using diplomatic skills, that's flavor text. The boasting and intimidation doesn't do anything. At this point neither the bad guy or the PCs are backing down from the fight. Nobody is going to kiss and make up. Yes, you may have stuff said to sound cool, but that's all it does. There's no mechanic effect.

And my initial point isn't so much nitpicking over what you call the reaction, but that the reaction rules don't exist at all for encounters with main characters. The DM is running this character entirely at that point. He's doing what the DM wants him to be doing.

Reaction rolls are for mook filler characters, because the DM probably hasn't planned exactly what the random encounter with orc looters entails and it adds to the game immersion to sometimes have them be not looking for a fight.

Swordslinger wrote:The problem comes with the idea that you don't want diplomacy to solve every problem. Diplomacy is a single character thing, and you don't want to make it possible to avoid all combat encounters because of a single PC, that's too much spotlight hogging. At the end of the day, diplomacy is just another skill, not an "I win" button.

People play a game of heroic fantasy expecting a showdown with the bad guy. That's a staple of the genre.

Diplomacy as a single-character skill is a separate problem. The solution isn't to make it harder to use; the solution is to bring more people into the Talkin'-To-NPCs part of the game, not to deemphasize anything that isn't part of the Murder Simulator because not everyone has skills in things which aren't murder. One problem at a time.

It'd be nice if it was worth using the Talkin' minigame on the BBEG for something other than convincing him to be nice to you/making him your willing slave, as well. A lot of the opposition seems to be coming from "It's really obnoxious to have the big centerpiece fight scene derailed by one character's skillset".

Of course, nevermind that Charm Person does the exact same thing only more effectively and instantly, but whatever.

If the GM wants the BBEG to boast, have him boast. If the GM has written the BBEG as a straight-to-business type who'd rather get the heroes out of the way as fast as possible, have him skip straight to combat. Arguing that the dice know what the group's going to want better than the GM is a pretty stupid argument.

And so is the idea that the GM having less power is always a good thing unless you can answer this:

Frank, I've made a game that you can play without a GM, and I could probably make one that works just as well for D&D and it would take me an afternoon, and I'm pretty sure you could do the same. Roll for villain stats, roll for villain motivations, roll for villain scheme, roll for his henchmen, roll for what kind of adventure we're having today, roll a few more adventure-specific things, etc. etc. It's not hard and if you're not big on consistency or coherency it can actually be fun. If you seriously don't care about narrative coherence so much so that you think that anything which gives the GM less power and less work to do is a good thing, why don't you just do that? You will never have to have another GM ever again.

Swordslinger wrote:The boasting and intimidation doesn't do anything.

This is a major design deficiency. People boast and sabre-rattle for reasons other than getting their opposite to back down.

Chamomile wrote:stuff

I don't think you understand the difference between ceding some agency to the players or randomness, and ceding all agency to same, and I don't think anyone here is up to the task of explaining it to you.

Frank Trollman has explicitly stated that removing power from the GM is always a good thing. Thus, removing power from the GM to the point where the GM isn't even a part of the game is logically the best thing possible. You may notice that I explicitly stated this in my last post.

No, he said it would be a good thing in every reasonable forseeable circumstance. Because the amount of power the GM has in every game is ridiculously excessive, such that it's inconceivable that anyone would succeed in limiting it too much.

Chamomile wrote:Frank Trollman has explicitly stated that removing power from the GM is always a good thing. Thus, removing power from the GM to the point where the GM isn't even a part of the game is logically the best thing possible. You may notice that I explicitly stated this in my last post.

If all you have are strawman arguments, I think Frank will just put you on Ignore. I think most people will respond that way.

We've talked with some seriousness about the feasibility and desireabilty of Killing Mister Cavern in the past.

Can I point out that as set up, the reaction roll probably wouldn't apply to the climactic showdown with the BBEG anyway? Because the idea of the reaction roll is to see how someone reacts when he doesn't already have a specific opinion of the PCs. So if the PCs bump into the BBEG in the third encounter of the campaign, he hasn't heard of them yet and could have any number of reactions. When they've spent the past three months of game time running around foiling his plans and have encountered him six times already he doesn't need to make a reaction roll. He's reacted to them already.

Basically, if you have a plot-important wizard hiding out in a hermitage, and the PCs want to go meet him, he could randomly decide to like them or to dislike them. And that's important and part of the game. But if they leave and come back, he's not going to randomly change from liking them to disliking them. Because that would be stupid.

Josh_Kablack wrote:We've talked with some seriousness about the feasibility and desireabilty of Killing Mister Cavern in the past.

As I've mentioned, I've taken a few stabs at it myself. I've never been fully satisfied with the results, but it's entirely doable and not necessarily undesirable. However if you want to do away with the GM entirely, then just try to do that.

Otherwise, there is still the problem: What makes this bit of the GMs power so special that we've decided to turn it over to the dice in all circumstances? Why are the players forced to roll a die to determine whether they're allowed to use Diplomacy when anyone telling them that they're not allowed to attack unless they pass their Mother May I Check would be ridiculed for it?

Chamomile wrote:Why are the players forced to roll a die to determine whether they're allowed to use Diplomacy when anyone telling them that they're not allowed to attack unless they pass their Mother May I Check would be ridiculed for it?

Well, right now they can't use Diplomacy unless they pass their Mother May I check with the GM's mood at the moment.

A Man In Black wrote:

Chamomile wrote:Why are the players forced to roll a die to determine whether they're allowed to use Diplomacy when anyone telling them that they're not allowed to attack unless they pass their Mother May I Check would be ridiculed for it?

Well, right now they can't use Diplomacy unless they pass their Mother May I check with the GM's mood at the moment.

Right now, diplomacy exists in the following forms:

1. MTP. There are no skills or other mechanics to determine social interactions.

2. The Illusion. There are skills and mechanics to determine social interactions, but it's all an illusion because it's Magic Tea Party anyway with the assumption that successful rolls mean good things in general. This is DnD's systems, WW, and Shadowrun.

3. Actual social mechanics.

Now, the question in this thread is whether #3 can be done and how you would do it. This comes with the assumption that actual social mechanics would involve the PCs occasionally doing things "off-script" and hijacking NPCs and the DM having to surrender some authorial control.

You can argue that #2 is the superior forms of play because it allows the DM to keep to his script, but for people who actually care about good games that conserve MC creativity for things that matter like the adventure, #3 is always going to be the ideal they are striving for.

I'm all for actual rules. The only rule argued in this thread I'm not on board with is the reaction roll [which I simply see as unnecessary. However in order to see the conversation move on from this I'm not going to make another comment about it as it is a mechanic that is easily enough removed. I'm more interested in what else should go into Diplomacy.

You can do without a reaction roll in games like World of Darkness or Champions because the default assumption is that you start talking in every encounter. The dialog box opens and you get into a fight because of what happens in that dialog box.

In D&D, where a substantial proportion of encounters go straight to the combat screen and never have a dialog box, you need a reaction roll.

-Username17

Alternatively.

In addition to Hostile, there is a new attitude called Stabbing You In The Face. Creatures first encountered in the scene as Hostile may move to Stabbing You In The Face at the drop of a hat (i.e. bandits threatening to kill you if you don't give up your loot and pile of magic items that suggest you're probably stronger than them anyway, because these bandits are not so bright). If a creature is already Stabbing You In The Face, you may make a Diplomacy check once per encounter against a DC of 10+CR, using the highest CR of the enemy group. If you succeed, you're able to shout something which convinces the other side to hesitate and stop fighting momentarily, however they still have weapons drawn and are ready to leap back into the fray at the drop of the hat. Mechanically speaking, they go from Stabbing You In The Face up to Hostile, where you can then continue negotiating with them as per your MCs Diplomacy house rules, because you are a decent human being who does not use the 3.5e Diplomacy rules.

So now there's hardcoded rules that can forcefully turn a combat encounter into a social encounter so long as you have the points to make it happen and the dice don't hate you. Numbers could probably use tweaking, I just went with whatever seemed like it would give a max ranks Diplomacy character decent odds of making it happen and didn't really check it thoroughly for balance. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of the Diplomacy mini-game being godawful, but that's another can of worms entirely.

K wrote: Now, the question in this thread is whether #3 can be done and how you would do it. This comes with the assumption that actual social mechanics would involve the PCs occasionally doing things "off-script" and hijacking NPCs and the DM having to surrender some authorial control.

You can argue that #2 is the superior forms of play because it allows the DM to keep to his script, but for people who actually care about good games that conserve MC creativity for things that matter like the adventure, #3 is always going to be the ideal they are striving for.

Putting NPC actions solely based on mechanics and not on the DM judgment sucks. It's a terribad solution that's going to lead to the social characters stealing the spotlight and making the story into a total joke.

In the case of #3 there is no adventure, because the PCs don't bother doing it. They just immediately use diplomacy on the guy who hired them to give them the money for free. If they fail, they go find another mark. Because it's all mechanical with zero common sense (which is what happens when you take the DM out of it), the game just entails the PCs as wandering con artists who try to talk everyone out of their magic items and wealth. Only because it's all mechanical and has zero story, there's no rational reason or explanation for what the con actually is or why the NPCs are doing what they're doing. So you end up not telling a story at all, and only showcase that all the NPCs in your world are a bunch of morons. It's just the Fable II silly dance that makes all your wives forget that you're a polygamist for no reason at all.

If you want your PCs to go around dancing like a fool and making farting sounds and suddenly the king hands them his kingdom as a result, then whatever, enjoy your shitty game. I'd prefer a game where the actions of the NPCs have some logic to them, instead of "Well the rules say the NPC agrees with the request."

Swordslinger wrote:In the case of #3 there is no adventure, because the PCs don't bother doing it. They just immediately use diplomacy on the guy who hired them to give them the money for free. If they fail, they go find another mark.

Then you make a Diplomacy system where you don't make everyone your willing slave for rolling really well.

Besides, the same argument can be made for having rules for killing people with swords. Why do adventurers do anything, when they can just murder their employer and take the payment? Or murder everyone they meet and take their possessions?

Now, the question in this thread is whether #3 can be done and how you would do it. This comes with the assumption that actual social mechanics would involve the PCs occasionally doing things "off-script" and hijacking NPCs and the DM having to surrender some authorial control.

You can argue that #2 is the superior forms of play because it allows the DM to keep to his script, but for people who actually care about good games that conserve MC creativity for things that matter like the adventure, #3 is always going to be the ideal they are striving for.

Why not just let players literally put down NPC's to interact with as well?

The DM can always be an ass and basically fix a script by making all NPCs be gods of the diplomacy minigame and preaware of PC exploits (and thus largely set on being hostile or not).

But if the players can place down characters, then they can plop down NPC contacts in a city, find Robin Hood and his Merry Men in the forest, plop down a dragon and his cave so they can bargain with it, etc. Then you just need to tune the risk/reward ratio so players are happy with making potentially hostile encounters for themselves.

quanta wrote:
Why not just let players literally put down NPC's to interact with as well?

The DM can always be an ass and basically fix a script by making all NPCs be gods of the diplomacy minigame and preaware of PC exploits (and thus largely set on being hostile or not).

But if the players can place down characters, then they can plop down NPC contacts in a city, find Robin Hood and his Merry Men in the forest, plop down a dragon and his cave so they can bargain with it, etc. Then you just need to tune the risk/reward ratio so players are happy with making potentially hostile encounters for themselves.

That's a pretty good idea in the direction of eliminating the GM, actually. But, if that's the route you want to go then you need to focus on eliminating the GM.

I'm not entirely sure why the two responses to making a real Diplomacy system not based on DM-fiat are:

A. Oh my god, it might be broken if we design it badly so we can't do it!

B. We are killing the DM if we let people have actual rules for Diplomacy!

Honestly, neither response makes any sense to me.