The Gaming Den

Yes, but you never have a situation where the nations of the world unite and then the demon lord gets the crap beaten out of him because the entire world is now fighting against him. Even after the entire world unites against him, the odds are still barely even, typically. So even in a situation where the odds are so close that yes, every little bit counts, you still get the guys who want to stick their head in the sand. Hereditary dictatorship sucks that way.

Alright, here's a slightly more developed system of the type I outlined back on page 2 of this thread. It's a fucking hotpatch, so it's not perfect - and works exactly like core diplomacy but with an effort made to accommodate the entire RNG - but you can plug it into the existing game without having to adjust anything on character sheets or monster stats:

Basically, NPC attitude is a 22 point scale )that maps to nine attitudes), a diplomacy check can shift it a maximum of down 3 or a maximum of upwards 8 points on that scale and other factors can shift it up or down by a maximum of 5 points on that scale.

Diplomacy (Cha)
Check

You can change the attitudes of other 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.

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

Usually no. Under most circumstances you may only use diplomacy to alter a character's attitude once per encounter.


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 character,

Diplomacy check result of
below 0: Great blunder apply a -3 modifier to the target's attitude category
1-5: apply a -2 modifier to the target's attitude category
5-9: apply a -1 modifier to the target's attitude category
10-14: apply no modifier - target's attitude is unchanged
15-19: apply a +1 modifier to the target's attitude category
20-24: apply a+2 modifier to the target's attitude category
25-29 apply a +3 modifier to the target's attitude category
30-34apply a +4 modifier to the target's attitude category
35-39 apply a +5modifier to the target's attitude category
40-44: apply a +6 modifier to the target's attitude category
45-49: apply a +7 modifer to the target's attitude category
50 or higher: apply a +8 modifier to the target's attitude category


[SIDEBAR]
ATTITUDES:

NPCs have degrees of affection or loathing for characters they encounter. For purposes of abstraction and game play, these are assigned numeric values. The MC may either assign a given attitude value to an NPC or roll randomly (1d20 for random results, 3d6 if most results should tend towards the middle). The diplomacy skill may shift NPC attitudes

0 irrational murderous hatred of you
1,2 violent, will take risks just to harm you
3,4,5 openly hostile towards you
5,6,7, suspiscious of you
8 to 12 socially expected interaction between strangers
13,14,15 socially expected interaction between acquaintances or friends-of-friends
16,17,18 socially expected interaction between friends
19,20 will treat you as if close friends or immediate family members
21+ will treat you as if one true love or only child

Modifiers to Attitude:

In addition to the results of a Diplomacy check, other factors may change a target's Attitude towards a diplomancer. In general, there are five categories that each factor falls into:

Appearance
Speech
Company
Relative Strength
Reputation

Each category overall may shift a target's attitude by +1, by -1 or by nothing at all. Each category

Appearance: includes the diplomancer's race, gender, garb, crest, and countenance. If the target finds these pleasing, then their attitude may improve by +1; if the target finds these displeasing, then their attitude may worsen by -1. A diplomancer who knows what the target finds pleasing in appearance may use preparations such as Disguise and/or form-shifting magic to make this factor work in their favor.

Speech: includes the diplomancer's language, timbre of voice, idiom, choice of words, and similar factors. If the target finds these displeasing, then the target's attitude may improve by +1; if the target finds these displeasing, then their attitude may worsen by -1. A diplomancer who is familiar with their target may use Perform to make flowery speeches, translation magics to speak more fluently, Knowledge (local) to know local idioms, and similar abilities to make this factor work in their favor.

Company: includes the diploamancer's companions and associations, both present and past, as well as others making similar requests of the target. If the diplomancer is in the company of people that please the target, then the target's attitude may improve by +1, and if the target is in the company of people who displease the target, then their attitude may worsen by -1. A diplomancer who is familiar with the sort of people who their target is happy to see may take a variety of steps to associate themselves with such types.

Relative Strength: this includes both the diplomancer and target's relative experience level and personal power as well as the relative strength of larger interests whom they are representing. If the diplomancer is stronger or in a stronger position, then the target's attitude may improve by +1 to reflect their desire to be conciliatory and avoid offense. Conversely, if the diplomancer is weaker or in a weaker position than the target, then the target's attitude may worsen by -1. A diplomancer my use Bluff or similar means to misrepresent their personal abilities or position as stronger than they may actually be.

Reputation: this includes prior deeds and rumours regarding the diplomancer as well as any prior history between the target and the diplomancer. If these bring the target favorable associations, then the target's attitude may improve by +1. Conversely, if these bring the target unfavorable associations, then the target's attitude may worsen by -1.
[/SIDEBAR]


Thus we have a system where

• the MC can set an attitude of an NPC or roll it randomly
• even if the MC rolls randomly, they can impose penalties on a roll due to a small group of circumstances.
• an unskilled (+0) diplomancer is capable (but not terribly likely) of improving someone's attitude by one category without making extra effort. (+2 to attitude on a check result of 20)
• that same unskilled (+0) diplomancer is theoretically capable of improving someone's attitude up to three steps by using other skills, magic, luck and planning to get all five factors working in their favor and then rolling well (up to +7 to attitude).
• If a random attitude is rolled, it's possible for a 1st level diplomancer to get the top result
• You have the outline of a minigame framework just a bit more codified than pure MTP to reduce or invert the arbitrary penalties that help the system achieve versimilitude.
• Even with the highest possible check result, a diplomancer can only improve attitudes one category when all factors are lined up against them and will want to use other means to mitigate those factors and use that minigame.

That seems to me to be a whole lot of what people are asking for.

Within the same framework, you can make tweaks:

If you want to make the raw check a bit less meaningful, you could lower the cap so that the best possible result is "40 or higher +6". (or raise the divisor so that the break points are futher apart) If you want to emphasize the circumstancial modiifers more relative to the diplomancy roll then you could let them count for more than +/- 1.

Issues remaining: Charm needs a slight rewrite to work meaningfully with this - it should temporarily shift the victim's attitude to friendly, but not allow diplomacy to improve it from there. Wild Empathy likewise needs some tweaking - although that could be handled by just setting a base attitude of wild animals and discussing which factors are likely or unlikely to matter to them.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Diplomacy check result of
below 0: Great blunder apply a -3 modifier to the target's attitude category
1-5: apply a -2 modifier to the target's attitude category
5-9: apply a -1 modifier to the target's attitude category
10-14: apply no modifier - target's attitude is unchanged
15-19: apply a +1 modifier to the target's attitude category
20-24: apply a+2 modifier to the target's attitude category
25-29 apply a +3 modifier to the target's attitude category
30-34apply a +4 modifier to the target's attitude category
35-39 apply a +5modifier to the target's attitude category
40-44: apply a +6 modifier to the target's attitude category
45-49: apply a +7 modifer to the target's attitude category
50 or higher: apply a +8 modifier to the target's attitude category

Wouldn't it be easier to set a DC based on the current Attitude Category, and say "for every 5 that you beat the DC by you shift them 1 additional category" rather than have the above chart? You could then use 'for every 5 you fail by...' for screw ups.

FrankTrollman wrote:Convincing someone to do something that is in their objective rational self-interest is one of the major things diplomacy is for.

That is a bad idea. Players and GMs will argue for hours over what is in the rational self interest of whomever.

Better to just let players and GMs decide purely arbitrarily what their character's actions are or aren't whether they are "rational" or not and have diplomancy mechanics that exist exclusively to change those actions. Regardless of genuinely subjective "rationality" arguments. Because we don't want to HAVE those arguments at the table, we sure as hell don't want to have those arguments at the table with circumstantial modifiers bigger than the entire level advancement range of the game at stake, I mean are you crazy you DO know how bad that could get right?

The point is ... to give those kinds of concessions to first level characters

And there you go leaping a vast gulf to an unconnected conclusion. Players disagree over what is "rational", you want circumstantial modifiers, and suddenly your (irrational) desire for those circumstantial modifiers to be bigger than everything else put together in an abstracted diplomancy mini game is your conclusion.

The first level herald vs the surrender orcs fails his diplomancy encounter. The orcs win. The orcs get to decide what they do, and maybe influence the herald back again. They either act "rationally" or not based on THEIR decision. This can in fact generate the result of "rational surrender" and can generate the result of "irrational war". It meets the requirements you demand, it did NOT do it with any need to have the 1st level herald standing ANY chance of victory. It especially doesn't need it because you COULD have just sent a level appropriate ambassador.

Your "rationality" argument is the same confused and subjective stuff you and the other anti-social mechanics grognards have been trotting out since the earliest social combat mini-game threads. The 1st level thing you are pulling out now is unconnected and basically entirely manufactured from your own imagination. You have failed to put together an example that survives basic scrutiny. There really is no NEED to have level 1 diplomancers be that good. I mean you COULD do it, but only in the same way you could do that with level 1 swording experts and fatal puncturing mini-games, if you REALLY wanted to and for the same entirely opt in subjective bullshit reasons.

PhoneLobster wrote: That is a bad idea. Players and GMs will argue for hours over what is in the rational self interest of whomever.

Or... the GM decides what's in the rational self interest of the NPCs and the PCs do the same for their characters.

If you have an unreasonable DM, just find a new game dude. No amount of rules is going to make that game good.

Swordslinger wrote:Or... the GM decides what's in the rational self interest of the NPCs and the PCs do the same for their characters.

Which works if you aren't giving out a circumstantial modifier bigger than the entire rest of the minigame and level system based on that decision.

If you DO give out a bonus that big, which Frank seems to be claiming you "must" then a) You don't really HAVE a "rest of the social minigame" and B) You have created a massive motivation for conflict.

If you have an unreasonable DM, just find a new game dude. No amount of rules is going to make that game good.

You fucking moron.

Phone Lobster, you were the person who said that NPCs would behave in their rational self interests and would would thus hand over powerful artifacts, take off all their protective gear, surrender their kingdom, and go fight demon lords without the intervention of a diplomancy minigame. I am now unable to determine what the fuck you're talking about, because you just said basically the opposite: that actually having those results as outputs of the diplomacy minigame was bad and that the DM should full scale magic teaparty all extreme results based on having decided what the NPC's rational decisions should be. Which is really weird, because you just spent several posts attacking people who wanted to MTP diplomacy.

Your demands are now so tangled and contradictory that I am not even going to respond to them until you work them out. You're not making any sense and are unworthy to even yell at. The only thing I am even going to touch is this:

Phone Lobster wrote:we sure as hell don't want to have those arguments at the table with circumstantial modifiers bigger than the entire level advancement range of the game at stake, I mean are you crazy you DO know how bad that could get right?

No, that's exactly what I want. I want a diplomancy system where the level advancement bonus is extremely shallow and the bonus for "is willing to offer something of equal or greater value in exchange" is very large and the penalty for "just chopped the target's parents up and fed them to howlers" is also very big. Because that might actually produce realistic looking results. As opposed to having a steep level bonus and minimal circumstantial modifiers, where high level characters are the pied fucking piper and low level characters can't get a sandwich for love or money.

-Username17

So, how much of the RNG should common circumstance modifiers potentially cover, and how much should static modifiers cover?

I can see it going either way; the RNG could represent how the NPC takes the circumstance, and thus all the modifiers (static and circumstantial) would be small, or RNG wouldn't do that, and thus the modifiers would easily cross the RNG many times. I'm not sure which is better.

PhoneLobster wrote: Which works if you aren't giving out a circumstantial modifier bigger than the entire rest of the minigame and level system based on that decision.

If you're handling it by rolls, then sometimes modifiers should get that big if your request is unreasonable. At some point you need a method of creating impossible requests that the other party will never agree to.

Assuming you're going with a roll vs. DC system, the only way to actually do that is to pump the DC so high that the roll is impossible. And yes, that means sometimes the modifiers do need to be big enough to shut you out entirely or make it an auto success. Otherwise diplomancers just take over the world.

FrankTrollman wrote:No, that's exactly what I want.

Grognard. Bad DM. Railroading method acting basketweaver.

Hows that for size. You demand fairy tea party. Fine. But be honest about it. You want Diplomacy rules that are purely about playing mother may I with the DM and kissing his ass until he hands you a circumstantial modifier bigger than the entire level advancement system. FINE.

But enough with this "I don't understand why level 1 diplomancers don't and indeed MUST BE ALLOWED TO take over kingdoms!". Enough with your moronic "and it HAS to work like that because... UNDER PANTS GNOMES!". You are just being an ass.

You find it too complex to understand that NPCs do things without the intervention of diplomacy mini games? And some of those things are ones you think are rational, some of those are things other players think are rational but you don't, and some of those things are things players decide the NPCs should do even if no one thinks it's rational. You demand those sorts of behavior and claim it can only work your way, well guess what, you are flat out on the bald face of it obviously WRONG.

Orcs surrender OR resist pointlessly ANYWAY. All the time. You do not NEED the diplomacy mini game to explain that. You do not need a FUCKING LEVEL 1 HERALD WINNING THE DIPLOMACY MINI GAME to explain that. The diplomacy mini game exists to CHANGE the orcs decision and it is NOT the place of the diplomacy mini game to make a judgment call about whether the player has SUCKED YOUR DICK ENOUGH.

And that IS what you are demanding. Now to the point of demanding your dick sucking reward modifier be bigger than the entire level system. You can go and do that. Fairy tea party and mother may I works, kinda, for things we don't give a shit about, but stop calling it a mini-game because your proposal does not deserve to be considered a solid formal mechanic let alone a "minigame.

Sword Slinger wrote:If you're handling it by rolls, then sometimes modifiers should get that big if your request is unreasonable.

But all your requests are to some degree unreasonable. Otherwise there would be no need for the use of a game mechanic to determine the outcome. You are placing yourself as a player in conflict with the decisions of another player about how THEIR character should act.

That is deeply "unreasonable" territory from a game play perspective, completely regardless of whatever subjective interpretations the players may have of the fluff involved.

It is perfectly reasonable that in some, indeed MANY situations when you try and stab someone with a sword it should be so massively in your favour that you totally murderize them without rolls and mechanics beyond the circumstantial modifier mattering. And yet with our stabbing people mechanics typically a good game actually makes such situations massively rarer than is "Reasonable".

Indeed Franks example of "a level 1 herald" is fairly ideal here, because even though it would be perfectly "rational" for there to be situations so circumstantially beneficial that a level 1 herald would totally murderize the entire high level Orc Warband leadership... our stabbing rules make that very very very very very hard indeed, if not impossible.

They do this for a reason and that is fairness. You are messing with someone else's character and "winning" at the story by stabbing them. Just as you are when you diplomancy them. We recognize that begging the GM for circumstantial modifiers so vast they break the level system is BAD for fairness for stabbing wins, but now Frank think's its an absolute must for diplomancy wins?

That is pure madness. You CANNOT adjudicate that fairly, and Frank has NOT put together ANY example of how to do so in the YEARS since the LAST time he demanded this in a thread about social mechanics.

Is there some reason we can't require the king to send a Herald with actual levels and Diplomacy to negotiate the surrender? I mean, my understanding is that people generally make a point of surrendering to the enemy general in person in conflicts like the American Civil War, not to some random footsoldier.

The enemy general put all his points into Generaling. Soldiers, regardless of rank, are not typically known for being shrewd negotiators.

PhoneLobster wrote: But all your requests are to some degree unreasonable. Otherwise there would be no need for the use of a game mechanic to determine the outcome. You are placing yourself as a player in conflict with the decisions of another player about how THEIR character should act.

As I said before the point of diplomacy isn't to convince people to take unreasonable actions, it's to convince people that a particular choice is reasonable.

Diplomacy is always about deal making of some kind. And both sides are always getting something, even if that something happens to be "If you surrender, we will imprison you instead of killing you." If the guy has good reason to believe they can make good on their threat, he may take the deal. But this is because your deal seems reasonable to his self-interest, not because you did diplomancy magic and mind controlled him into doing something he personally considers stupid.

At some point though, you have to say that certain diplomatic challenges are impossible. You can either do so by declaring it to be impossible or by setting a DC so high as to be unachievable.

Now clearly you don't trust your DM to be able to use logic to try to assign a DC to the task, I get that. But it sounds less like a rules issue and more a DM problem (or maybe just serious trust issues). But dude, rules just ain't gonna protect you from bad DMing.

Swordslinger wrote:Diplomacy is always about deal making of some kind. And both sides are always getting something

No it isn't. Not in this context.

In this context Diplomacy is a mechanic in a game it is about adjudicating who gets to say "bang you are dead" only instead of actually "bang you are dead" it is "bang I totally tricked you".

Don't forget that and go off in wildly eyed rambling rants about what you think social interactions mean. We don't care about your precious snow flake views on such things. Everyone has their own rambling motherhood statements on these matters, and the only way they inform us on how these things should work in game is that we should try and avoid asking people what they think it MEANS to socialize. I mean fuck it I don't want to hear you yammering on about what a diplomatic agreement really means HERE, I sure as hell don't want you bogging down a game by reeling all that out in some attempt to earn an extra god damn +2 every single time your character tries to talk someone out of their pants.

At some point though, you have to say that certain diplomatic challenges are impossible.

And we do that with regular combat and damage mechanics all the time. Only we do it based primarily on character attributes and the level system. And despite the fact that that may not be strictly "realistic" or "rational" depending on how much you suck your DMs cock it works really well because it's about having fair and predictable game mechanics.

Now clearly you don't trust your DM to be able to use logic to try to assign a DC to the task, I get that.

No. You don't. You are STILL trundling out "magic fairy GMs fix EVERYTHING!" that is a stupid argument. Stop making it.

Magic fairy GMs don't exist. I am the kind of guy who is your GM. I am a real person. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the mad emperor will demand you be beheaded for looking sideways at the donkey he thinks is his daughter and convincing him otherwise will SURELY be "impossible" in difficulty, he TOTALLY adores that donkey. My position is really rather hard to argue with.

It is however potentially bad for the game, but as a mortal GM rather than a magic fairy GM, I may not actually realize that, or perhaps I just can't bring myself to admit it, after all perhaps I adore that fictional donkey too. And even if I do realize it's a bad decision if designers listen to your magic fairy GM argument then they won't provide me with any handy tools to deal with the situation. Hell they may even have pretty much tied my hands and made it such that the "impossible" modifier is hard for me to argue my way back OUT of once the descriptive fluff is out there, much as suddenly massively low balling a monster (er, it was really a goblin not a hill giant!) mid encounter is very hard to pull of gracefully.

And it isn't always a flat out "being a bastard or a fool" scenario. I may think you guys ending up fighting the palace guard and their donkey senator overlords might be a fun adventure, I might be right. Another player however might have the idea that reasoning with the emperor and not fighting the palace guard and the donkey senate might be a better idea. And HE might be right. Worse we both might be right.

This is a dispute between conflicting ideas from perfectly reasonable and amiable players who both have an idea about what they want to happen next in the game.

It is very very clear from years of practical experience what sort of mechanics are better for EVERYONE in these situations. And they are ones in which level and character abilities matter MORE than circumstantial modifiers one of the players is allowed to, even required, to pull straight out of his ass.

Don't believe me? Charm Person and Diplomacy are both in 3E D&D. One is tied into combat style mechanics which are more firmly level and character based than the other. Which one works better? Why is that?

PhoneLobster wrote: No it isn't. Not in this context.

In this context Diplomacy is a mechanic in a game it is about adjudicating who gets to say "bang you are dead" only instead of actually "bang you are dead" it is "bang I totally tricked you".

Apparently your context is not the same context that everyone else is even talking about.

It's clearly not the dictionary definition of diplomacy either.

Magic fairy GMs don't exist. I am the kind of guy who is your GM. I am a real person. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the mad emperor will demand you be beheaded for looking sideways at the donkey he thinks is his daughter and convincing him otherwise will SURELY be "impossible" in difficulty, he TOTALLY adores that donkey. My position is really rather hard to argue with.

Again, it sounds like you've just had bad experiences with DMs being unreasonable. Yes, I get it dude, you've had a string of DMs that had inflexible NPCs and were probably railroaders. You probably had to sit by and listen to some bad DM have his DMPC solve the adventure. I feel sorry for you. Whatever.

But the game has a DM for a reason, and one of those is adjudicating stuff like this.

You just need to find a new DM who isn't so adversarial.

It is very very clear from years of practical experience what sort of mechanics are better for EVERYONE in these situations. And they are ones in which level and character abilities matter MORE than circumstantial modifiers one of the players is allowed to, even required, to pull straight out of his ass.

Well first, you're not looking at circumstantial modifiers that are just totally ad hoc, there'd be a table of examples and attached modifiers and it'd be up to the DM to choose which fits the best given the situation. Sure, your DM can always opt to take the most severe modifier if he wants, just the same as he can declare every wall a sheer flat surface with twice the slipperiness of ice. And he'll do that if he's a dick, but whatever, in that case, just find another DM.

I realize that you think it's incapable for your DM to act impartially, because you had an adversarial DM who happened to hate his PCs, but that doesn't mean that all DMs suck. Just because you had a girlfriend cheat on you isn't a good reason to swear off all women.

I get it bro, you want to make all those nasty DMs who hurt you pay. You want to run them through a gauntlet of crazy rules and regulations that straitjacket and restrict their every move. You want them to suffer as you have suffered. You want to be able to point to page 152 and say "HAHA! I killed your favorite DMPC and fucked your campaign world in the ass."

Yes, I get it. You're hurt and you're angry. You haven't gotten over past bad RPG experiences and let them haunt your soul. I dunno if your last DM raped your dog or whatever, but dude, whatever it is, get over it.

Anger and vindictiveness isn't going to make a better game. Making the game a miserable experience for a DM to run is not going to make them better DMs.

Don't lose hope bro, there are good DMs out there, it's a shame you haven't actually found one.

PL wrote:Hows that for size. You demand fairy tea party. Fine. But be honest about it. You want Diplomacy rules that are purely about playing mother may I with the DM and kissing his ass until he hands you a circumstantial modifier bigger than the entire level advancement system. FINE.
[contentless invectives removed]
You find it too complex to understand that NPCs do things without the intervention of diplomacy mini games? And some of those things are ones you think are rational, some of those are things other players think are rational but you don't, and some of those things are things players decide the NPCs should do even if no one thinks it's rational. You demand those sorts of behavior and claim it can only work your way, well guess what, you are flat out on the bald face of it obviously WRONG.

Wow. That word salad made no sense at all.

You declaim that NPCs doing things because they have assigned motivations and computable difficulties to be dissuaded from those courses of action is BADWRONG because it's Magical Teaparty. But the same NPCs just doing stuff without that interacting or being interactable with the diplomacy minigame at all - which is in fact literally and exactly what magical teaparty is - that's OK. Necessary even.

I'm just going to stop pretending you have anything to add to this conversation, because you don't. You just argued A and ~A back to back and filled in the space between with some incoherent insults. Swordslinger is wrong about a bunch of stuff, but at least he has an ethos.

-Username17

Orion wrote:Is there some reason we can't require the king to send a Herald with actual levels and Diplomacy to negotiate the surrender? I mean, my understanding is that people generally make a point of surrendering to the enemy general in person in conflicts like the American Civil War, not to some random footsoldier.

The general is consulted because he has the authority to make deals. A herald only has the authority to authorize whatever deal (or deals) he has been given. A piece of paper is simply literally a single take-it-or-leave-it proposition. But the other side may in fact take it.

Having a herald with more diplomatic chops is a good thing. It makes the other side more likely to accept the deal you want them to take. But the key is that having a high or low level herald bringing the proposal should be a modifier that fits well inside the RNG if you want the outputs of your social minigame to look anything like something people would accept.

-Username17

Frank, that sounds more like a plot device than a roll. In that scenario, it sounds like most of the negotiations are done, the guy with the fancy flag and the piece of paper is just needed to formalize it.

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:Frank, that sounds more like a plot device than a roll. In that scenario, it sounds like most of the negotiations are done, the guy with the fancy flag and the piece of paper is just needed to formalize it.

Frank has made it clear in this thread (and others) that he likes the idea of using Diplomacy/reaction rolls to make up plot points on the fly. Not my cup of tea, personally.

Desdan Mervolam wrote:Frank, that sounds more like a plot device than a roll. In that scenario, it sounds like most of the negotiations are done, the guy with the fancy flag and the piece of paper is just needed to formalize it.

Read King Henry IV. While subject to some interpretation, it's arguable that the entire plot of the play is kicked off because someone reacted badly to a courtier and refused to follow the orders from the king. And it's not even like the courtier intentionally tried to piss off Hotspur, the latter just plain didn't like him.

Or if you want a more contemporary example, the Mouth of Sauron was pretty ineffective in verbalizing his master's threat and got no reaction from Aragorn's forces. It's not impossible to imagine that if Sauron had someone more verbally talented he might have caused the army's resolve to weaken that much more. Maybe not get people to desert then and there, but definitely have fear take the edge off.

And this goes back to the modifiers. A good herald can get an opposing army to surrender before they're at the diseased and starving phase. A bad one may accidentally inspire the enemy army to decide to fight to the death.

hogarth wrote:Frank has made it clear in this thread (and others) that he likes the idea of using Diplomacy/reaction rolls to make up plot points on the fly. Not my cup of tea, personally.

I think it's pretty sad to get upset if the plot deviates from what you originally had in mind if a key negotiation works or fails unexpectedly.

Hell, that kind of stuff is the thing is huge for interpersonal drama and eschewing that means that you're a total storytelling badass who knows exactly what the players will like and when they will like it and introducing plot twists will only make your story worse. Or you're control freaky and unimaginative.

Surrender is a ceremony. The peace treaty is what's negotiated, and that is where all the actual outcomes are decided. Military surrender is an input to that negotiation, but not the only input.

Unsurprisingly, the actual treaties are negotiated by actual diplomats.

PL's position has been pretty consistent to me for multiple years now. Unless he's posted something differently crazy in this thread, what he wants seems pretty clear and coherent. What PL wants:

The DM can determine NPC behavior by fiat. If the PCs object, they can use a social minigame to attempt to force NPCs to behave as the PCs would like. The social minigame makes no reference at all to what people "want" to do or what it would be "reasonable" to do. Characters without a high Diplomacy skill are dependant on MTP to get anything done, but Characters with Diplomacy aren't, because they get Dominate (but without the restriction on actions against one's nature).

When he says MTP is bad, he means that once a player has chosen to use an ability written on their sheet, it should generate NPC behavior mechanistically without any DM fiat. That doesn't mean he wants to remove MTP from the game entirely.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

hogarth wrote:Frank has made it clear in this thread (and others) that he likes the idea of using Diplomacy/reaction rolls to make up plot points on the fly. Not my cup of tea, personally.

I think it's pretty sad to get upset if the plot deviates from what you originally had in mind if a key negotiation works or fails unexpectedly.

I don't know what to tell you. I like watching regular plays (for instance) over improvised shows because when improv isn't done well, it sucks. I understand if you feel differently.

If a diplomatic negotiation isn't a plot point, then it's deterministic or trivial. If you're rolling dice, it better not be deterministic or trivial. Because either would be a complete waste of time.

That a diplomatic negotiation that you actually roll dice for should generate a plot point seems to be virtually axiomatic. I am legitimately incapable of figuring out what you would have a diplomacy roll do if you rejected that premise.

-Username17

Chamomile wrote:The enemy general put all his points into Generaling. Soldiers, regardless of rank, are not typically known for being shrewd negotiators.

There is definitely something funny underlying that argument. I mean the thought of advancement in the higher ranks being a function of merrit alone. Merit is important, but self promotion is the key between the successful general and the successful but never was a general.

I'll refrain from singing the very model of a modern major genneral.