Using diplomacy on PCs


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

This came up in another thread and wanted to avoid further Derail.

Could someone help find something more than what was already stated about NPCS to help the poster understand that the DM can't just throw Diplomacy on the pcs to adjust their attitudes or make them do favors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Check

You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier.

Note the rule that specifically states... NONPLAYER. Right in the core rulebook.

Done.


If you read the post on the link that arguement failed to work.


Talonhawke wrote:
If you read the post on the link that arguement failed to work.

How could you possibly argue against that? Says non-player in the rules, therefore you can only do diplomacy on non-player characters.

That's it.

There cannot be any argument about this. It's CLEAR as day.


The argument in the other post is that "You" only applies to player characters. But if that's the case then...

NPCs don't have to follow the climb or swim rules either. Since they both have "you" in them.

So I guess NPCs can climb completely smooth surfaces without having to roll anything since they are exempt from the climb rule since it says "you" and therefore only applies to player characters.

See how ridiculous it sounds if you nit-pick so badly?


Ferio wrote:


There cannot be any argument about this. It's CLEAR as day.

I think you underestimate human stubbornness and others' ability to argue.

I agree with you on the 'Non-playern'ness of Diplomacy.

But it seems kind of bogus that Any player character can simply choose to Never trust a specific individual on Any level, without Any reason, (Let's say that player thinks he's a bad guy.) regardless of how friendly or seemingly trustworthy the individual is. Even if the individual goes out of their way to try to become actual friends with the PC, even coincidentally having similar mannerisms and personality traits that would make the PC drawn to them, the PC can simply choose not to have any interest in that person. (Kind of like life.)

Now flip those roles.

With a simple Diplomacy check (Using 'Simple' with varying degrees of looseness.) the PC can simply make the NPC trust him. Right there in the rules.

Seems kinda sketchy.


Ferio wrote:

The argument in the other post is that "You" only applies to player characters. But if that's the case then...

NPCs don't have to follow the climb or swim rules either. Since they both have "you" in them.

So I guess NPCs can climb completely smooth surfaces without having to roll anything since they are exempt from the climb rule since it says "you" and therefore only applies to player characters.

See how ridiculous it sounds if you nit-pick so badly?

I agree. Every other skill says "You". I guess that means that skills are actually only for PCs and every NPC and monster that has a skill is in error. Nearly all (if not all) spells say "You". Does that mean that spells cast by NPCs don't work? Can a NPC buff himself with Mage Armor? It says "you" which means "Player Character", right?

No. "You" always means the person using the skill/spell/feat/etc. It doesn't matter if you are a PC or a NPC. The rules are exactly the same. Diplomacy can not be used on PCs, as it only effects NPCs.

If the rule was meant to only apply to PCs, then it would say so. "You" applies to everyone.


Jeraa wrote:
Ferio wrote:

The argument in the other post is that "You" only applies to player characters. But if that's the case then...

NPCs don't have to follow the climb or swim rules either. Since they both have "you" in them.

So I guess NPCs can climb completely smooth surfaces without having to roll anything since they are exempt from the climb rule since it says "you" and therefore only applies to player characters.

See how ridiculous it sounds if you nit-pick so badly?

I agree. Every other skill says "You". I guess that means that skills are actually only for PCs and every NPC and monster that has a skill is in error. Nearly all (if not all) spells say "You". Does that mean that spells cast by NPCs don't work? Can a NPC buff himself with Mage Armor? It says "you" which means "Player Character", right?

No. "You" always means the person using the skill/spell/feat/etc. It doesn't matter if you are a PC or a NPC. The rules are exactly the same. Diplomacy can not be used on PCs, as it only effects NPCs.

If the rule was meant to only apply to PCs, then it would say so. "You" applies to everyone.

I don't agree with that completely. If the DM wants an NPC to be totally suspicious, he can give some sort of modifier. Call it situational, or whatever, but if there is a legitimate story line reason, or something supported by the NPC's past, give them a bonus nothing short of magic will overcome.

The grizzled old man, betrayed by everyone he had ever trusted before finally deciding to go live alone in the woods has a +50 modifier vs checks to influence his attitude. (Just as an extreme example)

Liberty's Edge

Nakteo wrote:
Ferio wrote:


There cannot be any argument about this. It's CLEAR as day.

I think you underestimate human stubbornness and others' ability to argue.

I agree with you on the 'Non-playern'ness of Diplomacy.

But it seems kind of bogus that Any player character can simply choose to Never trust a specific individual on Any level, without Any reason, (Let's say that player thinks he's a bad guy.) regardless of how friendly or seemingly trustworthy the individual is. Even if the individual goes out of their way to try to become actual friends with the PC, even coincidentally having similar mannerisms and personality traits that would make the PC drawn to them, the PC can simply choose not to have any interest in that person. (Kind of like life.)

Now flip those roles.

With a simple Diplomacy check (Using 'Simple' with varying degrees of looseness.) the PC can simply make the NPC trust him. Right there in the rules.

Seems kinda sketchy.

.

If I were the GM, in that situation, I would secretly roll a "Sense Motive" check for the PC. If the PC failed, I would inform the PC that the NPC is telling the truth. If the PC still refused to believe the NPC, than I am at a loss.


Unless DavidVs can prove that players control NPC's instead of PC's they are arguing a lost cause. Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.


Just a ridiculous argument. Why bother having players at your table if you're going to tell them how they feel and react to everything? I know charm spells can do that to a degree, but that's different and requires totally different situations.

Also, the DM can have NPCs that are not Diplomable or Intimidatable if they want, they're the DM! I've played in tons of official mods that had NPCs who you auto-fail if you tried to intimidate them.


Jeraa wrote:
I agree. Every other skill says "You". I guess that means that skills are actually only for PCs and every NPC and monster that has a skill is in error.

This is a convincing argument. I lacked the time to check whether all skills also use the "You..." phrasing.


davidvs wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
I agree. Every other skill says "You". I guess that means that skills are actually only for PCs and every NPC and monster that has a skill is in error.
This is a convincing argument. I lacked the time to check whether all skills also use the "You..." phrasing.

Not just skills. Pretty much every feat, every spell, and a lot of the equipment all say "You" as well.


Yar.

...uhm... why are we so focused on the word "you"? Shouldn't we be focused on the word that actually defines who/what the skill interacts with: "nonplayer"?

Does every other skill/feat/ability that includes "you" also include "non-player", or is that unique to this one skill, suggesting that it is an exception, a unique instance, and is in fact the important word (to know the meaning of) which describes how this skill works in the game? ie: "you" in all other instances apply equally to everyone and everything, PC and NPC, but because in this one instance it is called out specifically as an exception, then that is exactly what it is: an exception for this one particular skill.

Here's a LINK to the Diplomacy skill.

The word "you" is used all over the place and means whoever is using the skill/feat/spell/ability. Great. Keep on reading, and you'll see the following: "...can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check."

That is a copy-paste with added bolding.

Please, let's discuss the whole skill, and the implications of the word "nonplayer".

Last I checked, "you" doesn't change the definition of "nonplayer".

~P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Unless DavidVs can prove that players control NPC's instead of PC's they are arguing a lost cause. Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.

This brings me to my favorite houserule: There are no rules seperations between PCs and NPCs. Remove all references to player character(s) and nonplayer character(s) and simply replace them with "character(s)"


I had a player doing some meta-cheeze at the table with an NPC and hating the highly Charismatic cult-of-personality guy for no apparent reason (his previous character had dirt on the guy and somehow this was magically transferring).

He got really upset when I cheezed back and had the NPC do a diplomacy check on him and adjust his attitude.

I figured that was the only 'sporting' way to solve the argument,what's good for the goose...

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:
If you read the post on the link that arguement failed to work.

Doesn't mean the argument is wrong. Very often logic fails.

You can't make the PC act in any way they don't want to act, short of them being under a spell. Period.

Diplomacy,intimidate, etc...only work on NPCs.


ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
If you read the post on the link that arguement failed to work.

Doesn't mean the argument is wrong. Very often logic fails.

You can't make the PC act in any way they don't want to act, short of them being under a spell. Period.

Diplomacy,intimidate, etc...only work on NPCs.

The GM could also remove the character from the player and declare that he's an NPC for the scene. Optionally, the GM can simply declare that a player is now a nonplayer. The others can certainly walk away at any time.


HappyDaze wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
If you read the post on the link that arguement failed to work.

Doesn't mean the argument is wrong. Very often logic fails.

You can't make the PC act in any way they don't want to act, short of them being under a spell. Period.

Diplomacy,intimidate, etc...only work on NPCs.

The GM could also remove the character from the player and declare that he's an NPC for the scene. Optionally, the GM can simply declare that a player is now a nonplayer. The others can certainly walk away at any time.

The GM sure can then again the GM is sitting at a table with these people who he's angering I hope he has skin made of steel to give him a DR versus the asswhooping he's earned.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
If you read the post on the link that arguement failed to work.

Doesn't mean the argument is wrong. Very often logic fails.

You can't make the PC act in any way they don't want to act, short of them being under a spell. Period.

Diplomacy,intimidate, etc...only work on NPCs.

yea just cast charm or dominate and be done with it.


Theconiel wrote:


If I were the GM, in that situation, I would secretly roll a "Sense Motive" check for the PC. If the PC failed, I would inform the PC that the NPC is telling the truth. If the PC still refused to believe the NPC, than I am at a loss.

Rodrick, a man who has just been released from prison, where he was serving a 30 year sentence for poisoning unwary adventurers who visit his little hut, invites the pc's into his little hut. When inside, he offers them a drink, which smells suspiciously of almonds. The pc's say "I don't think I want to drink that." Rodrick says "Relax, it's an almond tincture that will increase your strength and intelligence greatly for the next year." You roll a sense motive check for the pc's against his bluff, and the roll fails. You say "Rodrick is telling the truth, the drink he is offering you will give you a +4 to strength and intelligence for a year. This is an untyped bonus." The pc's still refuse to believe the NPC. You are at a loss.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Theconiel wrote:


If I were the GM, in that situation, I would secretly roll a "Sense Motive" check for the PC. If the PC failed, I would inform the PC that the NPC is telling the truth. If the PC still refused to believe the NPC, than I am at a loss.
Rodrick, a man who has just been released from prison, where he was serving a 30 year sentence for poisoning unwary adventurers who visit his little hut, invites the pc's into his little hut. When inside, he offers them a drink, which smells suspiciously of almonds. The pc's say "I don't think I want to drink that." Rodrick says "Relax, it's an almond tincture that will increase your strength and intelligence greatly for the next year." You roll a sense motive check for the pc's against his bluff, and the roll fails. You say "Rodrick is telling the truth, the drink he is offering you will give you a +4 to strength and intelligence for a year. This is an untyped bonus." The pc's still refuse to believe the NPC. You are at a loss.

If that was info the characters knew and the penalty to the check still wasn't sufficient for them to pass, then they DO believe the guy. The roll signifies him being aware of his rep and accounting for it in his explanation or in some way overcoming it.

EDIT: Otherwise the situation plays out like this.

Player: I don't believe him.
*Sense motive vs Bluff*
GM: You feel it in your bones that this guy is honest and you'd bet your mother's soul on it.
Player: Nah, doesn't seem right.

What are the checks for? It's your character sure, but your character lives within the world while YOU live in the real world. It's hard to conceive because the guy didn't actually convince you, but HE DID convince your character. It'd be like if the GM made you give a speech when you rolled diplomacy, or swing a sword around when you attacked. We roll it so we don't have to do those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Davick - The whole point is that skill checks specifically are excluded from changing what player characters think. The checks are for NPC's, not pc's, the rules say so. Plus, it is poor dm'ing to wish to control what player characters think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont really see why there's an arguement here

The rules specifically say 'non-player character' for diplomacy. It is RAW. If someone refuses to accept that it is their business - its called houseruling.

If this person is a GM and his players agree - great
If this person is GM and the players dont agree - dont play
If this person is a player and the GM doesnt agree - tough - see rule 0

This guy would never be allowed this ruling in pfs because this interpretation is a house rule. If he isnt trying to GM pfs or a pfs compatible game it is irrelevant.

Arguing for the sake of it is pointless. It he isnt convinced by the plain, unambiguous text in the core rulebook nothing you say will change his mind.

Claiming the word 'you' refers to PCs and only PCs is a rediculous leap of logic. The PHB is written to aid players in character design. The first person perspective of 'you' is designed to inform a player what a skill or ability can do for them. As Ferio wrote, to buy into 'you' as PC only means that either NPCs cant climb or swim, or are always successful at the task. NPCs are built on the same rules. The clear differentiation between PCS and NPCs in the text of diplomacy is what indicates this particular skill works differently for each.

If there is an issue of players not reacting well (or out of character) to an NPC, this needs to be fixed by discussion in or out of game, not by railroading.

Talk to the player who is convinced that everyone in the world is out to get them. Why is this the case? Is the GM not presenting the NPC in the proper light to convince the player of good intentions? Is the player just being stubborn, or has the GM conditioned distrust by overuse of the "Friendly seeming NPC betrays the PCs at the critical moment" plot device? Maybe the player sees his characted as distrustful and is just RPing. I'm just spitballing here because no information on circumstances has been offered. What i'm saying is there might be issues that can be easily resolved (or at least accounted for).

Have events in game transpire as the player acts. Those PCs that forge friendships with NPCs are rewarded with valuable contacts and information. Those that dont do not gain this benefit. Condition the player to understand there is value in NPC relations rather than just always looking for the hidden knife.

Railroading players by telling them how their characters have to feel or act is the fastest way to kill a gaming group IMHO.

EDIT for spelling and clarity (hopefully)


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Davick - The whole point is that skill checks specifically are excluded from changing what player characters think. The checks are for NPC's, not pc's, the rules say so. Plus, it is poor dm'ing to wish to control what player characters think.

Wrong.

The Sense Motive skill's specific function is to allow a character to have a "Hunch" that is affecting what they think. Also, if they don't pass, they get no such Hunch, as in, they believe what they are hearing.

Another use of Sense Motive is "Sense Enchantment" and also "Discern Secret Message" If we applied the "doesn't actually work" mentality then it would be like this:

Player: HEY! I don't trust this guy.
*Sense Motive vs Bluff to gain Hunch*
*FAILS*
GM: You trust him as if he were a saint.
Player: HEY MAN! Don't tell my character what to think!
GM: Uh, ok...
Player: HEY! Is he ENCHANTED too!?
*Sense Motive to Discern Enchantment*
*FAILS*
GM: No.
Player: You can't tell my character what to do! I'm gonna cast dispel magic on him.
GM: Why are you even rolling the checks?
Player: HEY! Is that guy sending a secret message? I wanna know what it is.
*Sense Motive to Detect Secret Message.
*FAILS*
GM: He's not sending a secret message.
Player: Oh... Well you can't tell my character what to think!!! I'm gonna tell him he better tell me that secret message.

That's dumb. Especially since it says right at the beginning of Snse Motive "You can also use this skill... to assess someone's trustworthiness."

Notice that you there is the same you that means player characters in every other skill.


Whether you make skill checks or not, it is not the GM's job to tell the players what to think. This is outlined specifically in the Diplomacy skill description. I admit that using a "Bluff" example is less than clear, and it just seemed more entertaining to me. But, essentially, no matter how well an NPC does on a diplomacy check, they are unable to change a pc's attitude toward them. This is because the Diplomacy skill specifically states that it can only be used to change the attitude of NPC's.

Additionally, there is the concept of "player agency." This concept is: a player is in control of his own character. It is a mistake for a GM to try and make players make decisions they don't want to make.

This has nothing to do with the use of the word "you." It has to do with 1) the skill itself says that it is used to influence NPC's, and does not say it is used to influence pc's. 2) Player agency is paramount, and no matter how much you may wish to control a pc's actions, trying to do so will leave you with no players.

Finally, nothing has been said about the use of Sense Motive to discern enchantments or secret messages. This is about the Diplomacy skill, not the Sense motive skill, and you are conflating the two. If I were to say "you can not use the Intimidate skill to make a Paladin shaken, because he is immune to fear, it is not the same as saying "You can not use the Intimidate skill to change the attitude of a Paladin NPC."


Mabven the OP healer wrote:

Whether you make skill checks or not, it is not the GM's job to tell the players what to think. This is outlined specifically in the Diplomacy skill description. I admit that using a "Bluff" example is less than clear, and it just seemed more entertaining to me. But, essentially, no matter how well an NPC does on a diplomacy check, they are unable to change a pc's attitude toward them. This is because the Diplomacy skill specifically states that it can only be used to change the attitude of NPC's.

Additionally, there is the concept of "player agency." This concept is: a player is in control of his own character. It is a mistake for a GM to try and make players make decisions they don't want to make.

This has nothing to do with the use of the word "you." It has to do with 1) the skill itself says that it is used to influence NPC's, and does not say it is used to influence pc's. 2) Player agency is paramount, and no matter how much you may wish to control a pc's actions, trying to do so will leave you with no players.

Finally, nothing has been said about the use of Sense Motive to discern enchantments or secret messages. This is about the Diplomacy skill, not the Sense motive skill, and you are conflating the two. If I were to say "you can not use the Intimidate skill to make a Paladin shaken, because he is immune to fear, it is not the same as saying "You can not use the Intimidate skill to change the attitude of a Paladin NPC."

I'm conflating nothing. Diplomacy doesn't work on players and you'd have to be an idiot to think so. I was specifically referring to your opinion on the outcome of a Sense Motive check.

You'll also notice that in my example, the GM never tried to force an action out of a player. I feel it's more a responsibility of the player to play their character properly. Since the checks abstract a lot of the social interaction, it can be a challenge sometimes. A GM should help the players understand what these sorts of things mean and what is actually happening in the game world. Such as when you lose to a bluff check and the GM tells you so. It may be in your character to distrust everyone. But if it's not, the player has to weigh their hunch versus their character's explicit lack of a hunch. It's the Wis equivalent of Player Knowledge vs. Character Knowledge and it gets into metagaming territory. Were I the GM of such a metagaming player, I'd be unhappy and probably devise consequences for the behavior.

Really this is sort of on topic. Diplomacy can't affect an PC, but as we've discussed, Sense Motive can be used to gauge trustworthiness. And if they ignore that check, now you do have a firm rule to stand on. The key is, in any sort of situation it should be the player being active. I want him to trust me, I'll roll Diplomacy. Do I trust him, I'll roll Sense Motive.

EDIT: IN short, yes, in the case of Sense Motive IT IS The GMs job to tell the players what they think.


Ok, well I was confused, because the discussion was about using diplomacy on PC's, and you brought in the use of Sense Motive used for things other than opposing Diplomacy. I, however, started the confusion by using Bluff in my example instead of Diplomacy, so I am the instigator of off-topic discussion here.

I agree that it is simply bad playing to assume things about npc's which your skill checks PLUS other evidence (such as an npc's reputation for untrustworthiness) do not support. But I do also think it is poor GM'ing to base game events on a certainty that players are going to be fooled by a lie or misinformation. Just because an NPC has a high charisma and good skill bonuses does not negate other evidence that an NPC is a liar, such evidence which is going to convince a player of his disingenuous nature, despite what opposed skill check results might be.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:

Ok, well I was confused, because the discussion was about using diplomacy on PC's, and you brought in the use of Sense Motive used for things other than opposing Diplomacy. I, however, started the confusion by using Bluff in my example instead of Diplomacy, so I am the instigator of off-topic discussion here.

I agree that it is simply bad playing to assume things about npc's which your skill checks PLUS other evidence (such as an npc's reputation for untrustworthiness) do not support. But I do also think it is poor GM'ing to base game events on a certainty that players are going to be fooled by a lie or misinformation. Just because an NPC has a high charisma and good skill bonuses does not negate other evidence that an NPC is a liar, such evidence which is going to convince a player of his disingenuous nature, despite what opposed skill check results might be.

That could be handled different ways depending on the situation. If the PCs find incriminating evidence, do you use that as a modifier on the check, or just say kaput with the check, the PCs have made up their mind. What if the letter is found after the check is made? Make another check, or allow the PC to decide what they trust? It makes me wonder how good an idea it was to put a trust gauge into the rules at all....

Also, NEVER expect the PCs to not catch a liar or imposter, etc. Because they always do.


Pirate wrote:
...uhm... why are we so focused on the word "you"? Shouldn't we be focused on the word that actually defines who/what the skill interacts with: "nonplayer"?

A valid question. I'll answer it within a spoiler tag because the discussion seems finished and I do not want to restart it.

How this discussion got started:

The "Player's Handbook"

The first eleven chapters of the Core Rulebook are written for Players with PCs. Page 9 specifically says this: "Chapters 1 through 11 cover all of the rules needed by players to create characters and play the game. Chapters 12 through 15 contain information intended to help a Game Master run the game and adjudicate the world."

Someone reading the Core Rulebook for the first time, who has read to page 93 about the Diplomacy skill, has never yet been told that the skill rules might also apply to NPCs.

So far the Core Rulebook has only said that these skill rules are for PCs. When the text says "You..." it only means PCs.

Some Formal Logic

The statement "A can do X but not Y" tells us absolutely nothing about whether B can do X or Y.

For example, if I tell my three-year-old, "For lunch you can have soup or a sandwich but not ice cream" we know nothing about my neighbors and what they will eat for lunch.

Putting Those Two Points Together

We can paraphrase the first section of the Diplomacy rules as "You [a PC] can influence the attitude of NPCs but not PCs."

This tells us nothing at all about whether NPCs use the Diplomacy skill at all, or what they can do with it.

Concluding Question

Thus my question...

Now, we who have played Pathfinder know that NPCs follow nearly all the rules that PCs do.

But where in the rules does it say that NPCs use the skill rules by substituting their identity into those words "You..." without changing any other words?

The Core Rulebook probably does say that somewhere. But I can't find it.

Merely assuming it is true is as silly as assuming that my neighbors must eat soup or a sandwich for lunch because next door in my house I have told that to my three-year-old!

The concept of "player agency" is relevant, but that concept alone seems to me insufficient to make all PCs immune to all con men. Should not a PC that dumps Wisdom be more vulnerable to a swindler's charms? How else besides using the Diplomacy rules and an NPC skill check (with appropriate modifiers to represent what the PCs know about that NPC) would this be handled?

Yes, the situation is very rare. It requires a high-level NPC swindler. It requires the PCs to listen to the NPC for an entire minute. It requires PCs that are not intending to harm the NPC or the NPC's allies in the immediate future. Yet, given that the rare situation can indeed exist, what do the rules say?

A GM need not be mean or cruel to start an adventure by having the PCs meet a likable swindler who sends them on a quest with private plans to eventually betray them by refusing payment, stealing the McGuffin, and skipping town. The subsequent adventure should, of course, include some clues that this quest-giver might not be trustworthy. Situations like that happen in fantasy literature.


So what I was getting at with my statement of 'The player thinks he's a bad guy' but failed to portray (my bad) was that the NPC isn't a bad guy, but the player somehow thinks he is.

A question that's been bouncing around my head for the last few days is: How do you get an NPC to convince a skeptical PC that what he's saying is the truth (Which it is!!) with only words? (And maybe dice) Looking at the rules? You can't, besides trying to appeal to them in character. They could roll a Sense Motive and hit the DC 20 to get a hunch, see that the person is trustworthy and still think that he's outright lying to them, thinking he made a higher bluff check.

I think it's funny that according to the game, you can make people distrust someone who lies, but not trust a person who tells the truth. (Again kind of like life.)


That is the biggest issue with opposed checks and some players Nakteo I have had players over the years simply assume that everytime the rolled the dice that the DC or opposed roll was simply higher and proceed to take precautions.


Talonhawke wrote:
That is the biggest issue with opposed checks and some players Nakteo I have had players over the years simply assume that everytime the rolled the dice that the DC or opposed roll was simply higher and proceed to take precautions.

Fair.

By the way, sorry for derailing your thread. I offer you the Hand of Vecna in apology. I assure you it is %100 genuine and not the left hand of some random beggar I left bleeding to death in the street somewhere. :D


The main reason: Diplomacy is broken as written. It is trivially easy to succeed with it.

Liberty's Edge

Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Theconiel wrote:


If I were the GM, in that situation, I would secretly roll a "Sense Motive" check for the PC. If the PC failed, I would inform the PC that the NPC is telling the truth. If the PC still refused to believe the NPC, than I am at a loss.
Rodrick, a man who has just been released from prison, where he was serving a 30 year sentence for poisoning unwary adventurers who visit his little hut, invites the pc's into his little hut. When inside, he offers them a drink, which smells suspiciously of almonds. The pc's say "I don't think I want to drink that." Rodrick says "Relax, it's an almond tincture that will increase your strength and intelligence greatly for the next year." You roll a sense motive check for the pc's against his bluff, and the roll fails. You say "Rodrick is telling the truth, the drink he is offering you will give you a +4 to strength and intelligence for a year. This is an untyped bonus." The pc's still refuse to believe the NPC. You are at a loss.

Because the PC's have free will. If the drink actually did give that bonus and they didn't drink it they would lose out.

Without free will, what is the point of the game?

Liberty's Edge

@Davic - I almost always roll the players sense motive behind the screen to avoid metagaming, but what they do with the roll is up to them.

You can't run a players character for them, if I have a problem character, I will make sure to mislead them by having them either miss out on rewards or be tricked by "nice seeming" characters.

If you aren't able to convey properly as a GM what is going on to the point the players need to be forced around the table, that is a bigger problem that won't be addressed by making your players do what you want.

Liberty's Edge

Knight Magenta wrote:
The main reason: Diplomacy is broken as written. It is trivially easy to succeed with it.

Diplomacy is fine if you actually follow it as written. It takes a full minute of interaction to move anyone up or down the chart, and you can't ask favors against the NPC's nature, which is completely open to GM interpretation.

The problems with diplomacy are similar to most spell issues. People not reading it thoroughly.


I think the use of social skills on PCs is a tricky one. Players get used to GM styles and can often read the GM far far better than their characters can read the NPC. In my campaigns if I ever introduce a princess-equivalent the characters reach for their battle axes, for example. I don't think it's unreasonable for a GM to take into account the diplomacy of their npc in the way that they present that character, and confidently state their 'presentation' as fact. However, if a player doesn't trust an npc and is too poor a role player for their character to act as if they do because of out of game knowledge, there's nothing you can do. Spot the deliberately inflammatory statement in the previous sentence. It does cut both ways, no matter how good a pc's diplomacy is some npcs are just going to attack them. No player should ever be allowed to make (or at least, see) their own sense motive rolls though. The alternative would be to not put all those immaterial points into diplomacy and bluff and just max out perception and acrobatics. "Yeah, I know it's unlikely that the aristocrat would have spotted you sneaking through the servant's entrance at the soiree, but he didn't have anywhere else to put his points given that he can't affect your reaction to him."


Using Diplomacy to change PCs attitudes is a clear abuse of the rules in my opinion and doesn't need an FAQ. If there are gaming groups out there that enjoy playing with such nonsense, then more power to them, but I would rather the designers not waste their time with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nakteo wrote:

A question that's been bouncing around my head for the last few days is: How do you get an NPC to convince a skeptical PC that what he's saying is the truth (Which it is!!) with only words? (And maybe dice) Looking at the rules? You can't, besides trying to appeal to them in character. They could roll a Sense Motive and hit the DC 20 to get a hunch, see that the person is trustworthy and still think that he's outright lying to them, thinking he made a higher bluff check.

I think it's funny that according to the game, you can make people distrust someone who lies, but not trust a person who tells the truth. (Again kind of like life.)

This player to me would be no better than the guy whose first level character runs up on his first troll and yells "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" having had no reason to think fire was a good idea.

ciretose wrote:

@Davic - I almost always roll the players sense motive behind the screen to avoid metagaming, but what they do with the roll is up to them.

You can't run a players character for them, if I have a problem character, I will make sure to mislead them by having them either miss out on rewards or be tricked by "nice seeming" characters.

If you aren't able to convey properly as a GM what is going on to the point the players need to be forced around the table, that is a bigger problem that won't be addressed by making your players do what you want.

It's not about making players do what you want. It's about them playing characters who don't do what they want. I'm not the one having this problem. I don't run into situations where my players have their characters do crazy things. My players aren't metagamers. They're willing to play their characters as characters and not just avatars of a player, which is the cause of this problem.

It's no different than if they made a swim check and failed but then told you they did it anyway, or a climb check, or a jump check, or a knowledge check, or any kind of check. Imagine if the situation was switched. The player rolls a bluff versus an NPC's sense motive...

GM: Sorry he saw through your bluff.
Player: BULL! My character convinced him cause my character can do what I WANT!! WAH WAH WAH WHAT I WANT!!! YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT MY CHARACTER DOES!!!

Or...

GM: You successfully bluffed him, but he doesn't believe you anyway because... well just because. Oh and you smell bad.
Player: What? Wouldn't my stink have been a modifier on the check?
GM: NO. I mean, yeah it was, but whatever.
Player: Why did I bother rolling?
GM: I don't know. I guess for the same reason I have you roll sense motive checks. It's not like they do anything or have any sort of mechanics behind them, or a table with DCs on it and descriptions of their effects.
Player: Yeah, it's dumb. Where were we? Oh yeah, you were telling me that the guy didn't believe me even though I got the bluff DC to convince someone they're a snake.

Or my favorite:
Player: My character runs his sword through the orc's gut and headbutts him crushing his skull in an explosion of brain and blood.
GM: Ok, well you'll need to roll some attacks, and you don't have IUS so that'll provoke. And we'll just have to see what happens to his HP.
Player: Are you trying to tell my character what to do? SCREW YOU! My character does what I tell him to NOT YOU! YOU CAN"T CONTROL ME! I'M NOT A PART OF YOUR SYSTEM!!!!!.
GM: Actually you are. It's a D20 system. It uses dice to determine outcomes.


I think the problem with much of this discussion is that GMs are focusing on how to get players to believe that an NPC is trustworthy.

In the group I game with, the answer is simple. No one tries to trick the players.

If an NPC uses diplomacy or intimidate to influence the PCs, I make the rolls, have the players make their appropriate sense motive rolls, and then I tell them the results.

"Okay, the scruffy-looking guy at the inn engages you in conversation. Roll a sense motive, if you want."

[NPC rolls a 32 diplomacy.]
[Players roll a 12, 16 and 8 on sense motive.]

"He beat all of your rolls by 16 or more. You recognize that his shady appearance is really just due to the shabbiness of his clothing, but that he comes across in conversation as an honorable and helpful person."

At this point, the players will usually role-play accordingly. If, on occasion, one of the players chooses not to go with the outcome that our rolls indicate, that's his or her right as a human being with free will. I might remind the player from time to time of the rolls ("remember, he has rolled several very high diplomacy rolls to improve your impression of him"), but if the players disregard them, I don't get bent out of shape over my inability to control the thoughts and actions of my friends.

Of course, one of the big reasons that the players are willing to play along and role-play according to the results more often than not is that I don't betray their willingness to stay in character with jerk GM power trips like:

"Ha, you failed your sense motive. Now you believe the naked woman with bat wings is your long-lost sister and have to trust her completely when she asks to kiss you."

"He intimidates you, and you fall to your knees begging for mercy in front of all your troops."

etc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Davick - I think the problem is you telling the player if they succeed or not. That is what the DM screen is for.

Player: I roll a bluff
DM rolls, player fails
Player: Is he bluffed
DM: "You don't know yet, what do you want to try to do?"

Player fails sense motive, you don't tell him he failed and the guy plans on screwing him over, you tell him he thinks the guy is legit.

This is what the DM screen is for. You stay consistent, your players don't actually know if they made the check or not and have to make a decision if they trust their instincts or not. I never ceased to be amazed how suspicious players can be of intended allies if they don't know if they made good rolls or not because I had it behind the screen.

Notecards with your players key skills (stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, etc...) and an evil grin should be part of the GM toolkit.


How about the rule called "common sense?" GMs don't control player's opinions and decisions with dice rolls unless they're under a compulsion or some similar effect. Paizo wouldn't write a rule that takes control of the character away from the player in every conversation. It wouldn't happen. It makes no sense, and is against the spirit of the game.

If you want players to believe a character is trustworthy, play the character that way, and let them make skill checks to confirm it. If they still don't - well, that's called free will. Players don't always do what the GM wants, and the challenge of GMing is in figuring out how to deal with that.


ciretose wrote:

Davick - I think the problem is you telling the player if they succeed or not. That is what the DM screen is for.

Player: I roll a bluff
DM rolls, player fails
Player: Is he bluffed
DM: "You don't know yet, what do you want to try to do?"

Player fails sense motive, you don't tell him he failed and the guy plans on screwing him over, you tell him he thinks the guy is legit.

This is what the DM screen is for. You stay consistent, your players don't actually know if they made the check or not and have to make a decision if they trust their instincts or not. I never ceased to be amazed how suspicious players can be of intended allies if they don't know if they made good rolls or not because I had it behind the screen.

Notecards with your players key skills (stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, etc...) and an evil grin should be part of the GM toolkit.

It's not hard to work around after all everyone has a tell particularly DMs for example if the dm say "There aren't any traps" There are always traps but that's not really an issue we walk into them anyways because our characters think there are no traps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh... There's nothing worse than telling a player how to play their character. What's the point of playing if someone else is deciding what your character does and even thinks.

Using "diplomacy" on a player's character not only leaves a bad taste in the players mouth because they are being "directed", but it leaves the player with no idea why they are supposed to act friendly to this person. Maybe the player just straight up doesn't like the guy that you as a GM are so fascinated with. Maybe what you as a GM see as fancy, the player sees as snobbish and a control freak, then telling the player that they have to like a guy?

As far as sense motive, it's not a check to see whether or not you trust someone persay, it's really just to see if they're up to something. It doesn't matter how much you like or hate the guy, it's how well you know them. So it would never be "you trust the guy" but more of "this guy isn't up to anything, you're probably just being overly cautious".

What's really ridiculous is how many GMs don't get upset if a player acts in a sort of offbase way that just screws them over or creates a humorous scene, but if the the GM misses out on his chance to force a plotline or screw with the players and the players avoid it out actions the GM doesn't find sensible they get upset.a


Mike: How long has this NPC been talking to us?

Bob: About 45 seconds

Mike: Thorak The Rage burner loudly rejects the sissy talk of peace, and buries his great-axe in the man's skull.

Dm: "Blink.. what the hell was THAT for?

Mike: I didn't want to get charmed Via Diplomacy again.

I think a better approach might be to alter your description of the character based on their diplomacy or bluff, if they have a good one, try to steer the players towards the "this is a helpful npc" conclusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My #1 house rule, and I state it up front.

Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can do. I've found over the years this prevents 90% of cheese and broken builds, and it leads to people playing as if this is a cooperative venture rather than us vs them.


Odd that Diplomacy can't be used against PCs, but Intimidate can force PCs to act friendly.


HappyDaze wrote:
Odd that Diplomacy can't be used against PCs, but Intimidate can force PCs to act friendly.

I don't think the intent of the original developer was to limit it to NPCs. I think it was written from the viewpoint of telling players what it can be used to do. Unfortunately, the original dev didn't think about people parsing the rules by strict RAW. By strict RAW, diplomacy doesn't affect PCs because they are not NPCs. Not RAI, I don't believe, but RAW. In my games, I treat this as a RAI <> RAW, and allow diplomacy to affect PCs (otherwise, things such as selling/buying become an exercise in the PCs always getting the best of every NPC they deal with, since the NPC can't lower what the PC wants for the item, and they also can't stop the PC from lowering what they'll sell it for, since diplomacy as written doesn't work on PCs).


mdt wrote:


I don't think the intent of the original developer was to limit it to NPCs. I think it was written from the viewpoint of telling players what it can be used to do. Unfortunately, the original dev didn't think about people parsing the rules by strict RAW. By strict RAW, diplomacy doesn't affect PCs because they are not NPCs. Not RAI, I don't believe, but RAW. In my games, I treat this as a RAI <> RAW, and allow diplomacy to affect PCs (otherwise, things such as selling/buying become an exercise in the PCs always getting the best of every NPC they deal with, since the NPC can't lower what the PC wants for the item, and they also can't stop the PC from lowering what they'll sell it for, since diplomacy as written doesn't work on PCs).

Wouldn't a Failed Diplomacy check by the PCs accomplish the same thing? A check failed by enough could shift it more into the merchants favor.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Using diplomacy on PCs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.