|
I'm a big fan of Rick Burlew's open content Diplomacy variant. Considering it is OC, is it possible to incorporate this variant into PFRPG, as long as Rich gets the credit (which he should)?
I'm also a big fan of it and thought of it when I saw your thread. I'd definitely like to second this suggestion.
I just read through this for the first time. That's a really good system.
I just read through this for the first time. That's a really good system.
It actually suffers from several problems:
-It artificially scales the DC of Diplomacy checks by +1/lvl. Exactly what we don't like about 4E.
-Determining the DC by using the level of the "target" is a bad idea, because monster levels are inconsistent.
For example, under that variant, a Hill Giant (12HD, CR7) is tougher to influence than a Human Cleric (7HD, CR7), but a Nymph (6HD, CR7) is even easier to influence.
Also, he uses the term "level" to describe the Diplomacy target. What does that mean?
Does he mean Effective Character Level? If so, that Hill Giant is suddenly even harder to influence, as it's ECL is 16 (12HD, +4 Level Adjustment).
Does he mean Hit Dice?
Does he mean Challenge Rating?
We don't really know.
So, he's off to a start, but it'll need some changes to be considered for adopting.
-Matt
Of course he doesn't mean ECL. ECL is an entirely artificial system designed purely for allowing people to play monsters in some regard. ECLs do not exist for NPCs and monsters. If you want a monster guideline, I would say class level or CR (whichever is higher, if a monster has class levels too).
4th Ed or not, a 20th-level wizard is going to be less easy to convince than a wet-behind-the-ears guard corporal and Rich Burlew’s system specifically conforms with the trope where the inexperienced noble has his ancient advisor on hand to help him out with major decisions.
4th Ed or not, a 20th-level wizard is going to be less easy to convince than a wet-behind-the-ears guard corporal and Rich Burlew’s system specifically conforms with the trope where the inexperienced noble has his ancient advisor on hand to help him out with major decisions.
Well, assuming for a moment that "level" (remember, we don't know what he means by that, since monsters don't have levels, they have either Hit Dice or Effective Character Level) is the way to go...
His variant scales Diplomacy by two things:
-"Level" of target.
-Wisdom modifier.
Well, there's a very 3.5ian element that includes both of these: Will save. Though it's not perfect, suddenly the gap between Giants and Human Clerics is lessened.
Also, another element to add: We can assume with relative certainty that the toughest negotiators are, well, experienced negotiators. It's more difficult to use Diplomacy on someone trained in Diplomacy than someone without it.
Perhaps what we're looking at here is setting Diplomacy DCs based off the Will save of the target, and the target can use Diplomacy instead if it's higher.
-Matt
Well, there's a very 3.5ian element that includes both of these: Will save. Though it's not perfect, suddenly the gap between Giants and Human Clerics is lessened.
The DC 15 + Will save isn't a bad mechanic, because it does help take into account both someone's experience and someone's perception of the world. The Paladin (with Divine Grace) will likely not be dissuaded from a course of action they believe to be righteous, but the Barbarian can be talked down rather easily.
I do like the scaling system, and it's in keeping with other skills. The real problem with Diplomacy is that it's one of the few skills that can't be used against the party. Unless your DM is going to dictate character actions, they can only use Diplomacy to tell the party how persuasive and charming a particular NPC is and let the players decide.
At the very least, the situational modifiers to Diplomacy checks are a good idea. I've always felt that a high-level bard should be able to stop a fight with some well-spoken words but it shouldn't be easy.
The current system really isn't the best, but I don't think that using level, CR, or ECL is that much better.
I can see something like DC = 10 + Wis (or will) + modifiers.
Modifiers would include initial attitude, and what it is you want from the guy. ("Can you hold this for a second?" is easy. "Will you forswear your alliance against the Evil Overmaster Of All Doom and his Infinite Legion of Invincibility to help me with my crazy plan for this one in a billion chance to win freedom for all goodly people" is not).
There should also be a negotiation mechanic, where you basically roll opposed checks.
There should also be a negotiation mechanic, where you basically roll opposed checks.
And it should cover haggling.
What I like best about this system is that his concept of modifiers are much more thought out than the standard 3.5 "initial attitude" chart and those are easy to transfer over on the fly.
Diplomacy was always nagging me. The Problems:
1. fixed DC's without *a chance* to resist which were just blown away at higher levels (3.0 +30 bonus for nothing...). Not to mention the epic fanatic state.
2. The benefits applied only to PCs. A DM stated, that he just ignored the outcome of diplomacy checks, because the Players did as well. This can't be fixed, it's lying in the nature of this skill and the superiority of PCs.
3. The change of attitude is too coarse. At least PRPG got rid of the fast use of diplomacy, which was (at high levels) a gamebreaker.
Well, Burlew stated these and more. The mistake he did, is to forget that you're not just using diplomacy against people with PC or NPC-classes. As long as you talk to a group of those the system works just fine.
Things I miss:
Diplomacy-depending DC. The target of your trade should gain a benefit for investing in Diplomacy. Maybe the base DC could be: 15+highest level+highest Wis or 12+highest diplomacy whichever is higher.
1st-level commoner lifelong shopkeeper: He can't fight but he's doing this job a very long, long time. What's the DC? Average 17 plus bonuses for Risk vs. Reward up to 27. Busted by 10th level guy. Get the dirt give me your shop old man. Thois can be easily fixed though by just letting that happen.
|
|
I posted this last night in another thread as a reaction to something someone said, but this might actually be a better place for it (i.e., please excuse the re-post). The discussion was about creating a more dynamic "social combat" system, a system where there was more back and forth - and more tension - to diplomacy than a single skill check. This was my quickie idea. Probably too out of the box for Pathfinder right now, but any reactions?
Thanks.
Right now, NPCs basically have an attitude score, the DCs to get them to do certain things. What if you treated those attitudes more like hit points? Instead of trying to hit a certain DC with your Diplomacy roll, you chip away at it. A successful Diplomacy check vs. DC10 (regardless of the NPCs attitude) allows you to improve the NPCs attitude by 1d4, and for every 5 you beat the DC by, you get to up the die: beating DC10 by 5 raises it to d6, by 10 raise d8, etc. So it's more like "attacking" their attitude. If you fail by 5, you worsen their attitude by d4, fail by 10 and you worsen it by d6, etc. Social combat.
Or, everyone could start with the same number for attitude, say 20, but the DCs for certain dice would vary, i.e., if they are indifferent DC10 gets you a d6, but if they're unfriendly, it only gets you a d4, and if they're hostile, it only gets a flat 1 in "attitude damage."
In a more developed system, you could actually center the system on 0 with indifferent being 0, friendly being 10 and helpful 20. Unfriendly would be -10 and hostile -20. The someone would literally have a "negative attitude" toward you.
Intimidate (including blackmail) can also be used to adjust someone's attitude and might have larger "damage dice" because it can adjust someone's attitude more quickly, BUT unlike regular hit points, attitude points don't heal. Next time you meet that NPC, she's got the same opinion of you. That's fine with Diplomacy, but what if Intimidate flipped as soon as the threat was removed? Say you'd "improved" someone's attitude by 10 points through Intimidation, from indifferent to "friendly." Next time you meet them, their attitude is 10 points worse, decidedly unfriendly!
Bluff, the third leg of the persuasion trifecta, would be similar to Intimidate except that the negative effects wouldn't kick in until the NPC figured out the truth. The positive effects would last longer so maybe the "attitude damage" dice would be more in line with Diplomacy. That would be more in line with Bluff seeming to be the truth anyway.
Getting a tad more complicated, maybe their "social armor class" would be their Will save. That could set the starting DCs! 10 + Will. A weak willed guy with a Will of -2 starts at a DC8 to adjust his attitude, while a strong willed fellow with a Will of +4 starts at a DC14 to adjust. Not a huge difference but enough that every person isn't exactly the same.
Hum. It could definitely use some work, but not bad for a instant little social combat system based loosely on the existing attitude adjustment system.
EDIT: Okay, after a few minutes of thought, I like the set scale of attitude adjusting dice - DC10 is always d4, DC15 is always d6, etc. The increased difficulty comes from having to chip away at higher attitude scores. Having different scales for different attitudes would be too complicated and require a table. BUT, a DM could still adjust the DC like any other skill check with situational modifiers, aid another checks and synergy). Bluff would use the same scale but Intimidate wold get a slightly better one.
I think the attitudal system has to be removed totally from the game, but doing this with social skills 1. does not quite fit in the pathfinder way, I believe, and 2. is frustrating for players who aren't in discussing. Some have clever ideas but can't express them, some can use words artful and in beautiful ways while saying almost nothing. Social skills should help those people out, while roleplaying your way out should be rewarded too.
That's what is so brilliant about Burlews System. You get your roll but you are rewarded by having good arguments or at least good money...
Maybe adding a 3rd possibility to calculate the DC, besides 10+level+Wis and 10+diplomacy, would do the trick (15+will save maybe), but would add too much complexity to only one skill.
Getting social skills out becomes more and more appealing...
Instant idea: erase Diplomacy. The only relevant skill in a discussion/trade/whatever should be Sense Motive. On some points during such a conversation your DM allows you a Sense Motive check to get a hint what can be said or offered to make your "opponent" helping you. The quality of the check determines how much the hinted point can help you or how the hint itself is done.
A low success would mean a minor clue or a vague comment from the DM.
A failure would result in an unimportant tip or even in something that could make things worse.
Than it's roleplaying and thinking time. The clue has to be considered under the aspect of helpfulness and fitted into the conversation.
When the players do their job well thats a plus on the creatures will to help you. The DC changing factors Burlew mentions under *Relationship* could be used as the starting value of the creatures willing. After the end of the dialogue this value has changed and the reaction of the creature is determined by it.
If the hint the DM gives is interpreted correctly and presented the right way thats a +3 or +2 to starting value. If the clue is useless or useful but presented the wrong way give it -1 to +1. When the advice was a poor one and the players didn't foresee the failure that ought to be a -2 or even -3.
That also helps bringing dimension to NPCs. Someone who dislikes red gems wouldn't be fine being offered one. So the PC sometimes also have to be prepared when going into such a negotiation, to avoid wrong topics.
My two cents:
I think Pathfinder has taken a step in the right direction by adding rules for asking for favours (not unlike Rich Burlew's rules in some sense). I'd suggest getting rid of the attitude-changing part of Diplomacy altogether, and sticking with the "asking for a favour" model. That's how how models seem to handle Diplomacy anyway (e.g. "if you can make a DC 25 Diplomacy check, the NPC gives you some information"). Just make sure to add in some boilerplate that says that unreasonable requests are never agreed to, no matter how high your Diplomacy check is.
|
I posted this in another thread, but thought it might be relevant here as well. See if you can toss it around with Mosaic's idea for 'social hit points';
The real issue is; there shouldn't even be a single, cover-all skill called Diplomacy.
<uproar>
No, seriously. It's just too broad.
Mechanically, it's far too easy for a player to max out one skill, for all occasions. A character with Diplomacy is never considered 'out of his element', and this is wrong. The aristocrat, born to high society, is considered equally at home with the dregs of the Under-City.
Flavour-wise, it results in ridiculous situations where a character's bonuses are applied in situations where they should not, such as 'fine clothing' making you welcomed with open arms by a tribe of orcs, who should respect 'ruggedness'.
DMs are forced to set DCs that will challenge the specialists, which encourages 'all-or-nothing' character builds, where you either max the skill, or don't have any ranks in it at all. Which reinforces the problem of;-
Table-spotlight-time. Having only one 'face' in a party means that several players sit around for long periods, while one player goes off with the DM. The non-diplomatic PCs are loath to split up, to even attempt to cover multiple leads simultaneously, since 'There's no point. I suck at this. He's the only one who can do this...'. This becomes a self-fulfilling cycle...you don't put ranks in, because you don't use it, you don't use it, because you have no ranks...
So the majority of the group sit around the table, bored out of their minds, while one player does most of the role-playing encounters in the adventure.
This exacerbates the symptoms of players who say "Wake me up when combat starts", and tempts the non-active players to act up, to provoke a fight, where their characters have something to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So, having said that;
Making a 'Diplomacy roll', is fine.
But shouldn't it be an alternate use of another skill, but with Cha in place of the normal relevant ability score?
So, when you're at the Duke's ball, you schmooze with the aristocrats, using your Knowledge (nobility) ranks, modified by Cha instead of Int. You know who's important, who's allied to whom, and avoid a social faux pas.
When you go to the library, you Diplomatically convince the Head Librarian that you should have access to the Restricted Section, by displaying your Knowledge (the planes), while using your Cha to reassure him that you would be using this information for Good...
When you're down the docks, you would make a Diplomacy check based on your Knowledge (local) or Profession (Sailor), again, with Cha as the relevant ability score.
When you're trying to win the trust of the Stable-Master, your ranks in Handle Animal, or Ride, are far more likely to impress him than your debating skills.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So; what are the benefits of doing it this way?
The current Diplomacy rules are used as a lazy short-cut. The players declare they will 'use Diplomacy' on an NPC, as if it were some magic cosh, and stare blankly when you ask them what, exactly, they are going to say. Making the Diplomacy roll be based on an actual skill, profession or knowledge, shows that the character has something in common with the NPC, has something to talk about, and justifies why they would break off from their busy day, to spend time on you.
It changes the flavour of the result. The clerk who you impress with your knowledge of history may just think you would make an interesting friend for conversation. The same clerk, if you impressed him with your noble contacts, may believe you owe him an introduction to a better post...
It reduces mechanical abuse. In order to fit in with all strata of society, one must know how those people live, by having skills in several areas. No longer can you max one skill, and leave the others bare. Bards and Rogues will still be the master diplomancers, but it will be because they have spent their skill ranks over a wide area.
It gets all the players involved. Maybe Fred Fighter only has average Cha, but his one trained rank in Profession (Farmer) makes him the equivalent of Cha 18, when negotiating with rural folk. That's better than the Cha 17 Bard, who has no ranks. Guess who gets made temporary party spokesman, for that chapter?
It increases the usefulness of many often-ignored skills, by allowing the owners of those skills to influence others who share their interests.
Any thoughts?
|
|
Interesting idea. Probably too different for Pathfinder (like many of the good ideas people have come up with), but interesting none the less.
If nothing else, I absolutely see the benefit of retaining situational synergy bonuses on a checks like this. Maybe we keep Diplomacy because it is such an established part of the current skills system (although it is a total short-cut, as Snorter points out), but allow skills like Craft, Knowledge and Profession to add significantly to appropriate Diplomacy situations.
Berlew's system sucks in 3E. It might be something you could use in 4E where the diplomacy checks are less open ended, but in 3E, you've got to basically assume that people can find way to pump their skills to ridiculous levels, because they can and will.
Berlew's system basically allows you to go around making trades with people and if your diplomacy is high enough, you can get free stuff. One example he gives is trading a piece of string for a castle. And there's really no penalty for failing a diplomacy check.
So what this means is that your characters can wander from noble to noble, magic shop to magic shop just trying rolls. Even if the penalty is really big and they succeed only on an 18 or better, that still means they succeed 3/20 times and can get effectively anything they want for free at zero risk. To make matters worse, the penalty Berlew assigns, which is a -10 for a total ridiculous deal is much much too small. It's clear that Berlew has never played a game past low level with that house rule. And honestly I can see it being abusive even at low level.
Assuming your diplomacy is maxed. The DC to convince an equal level character with no wisdom modifier is a 15. Take the -10 penalty for a ridiculous deal and that's a 25. Now, you're spending all your ranks on diplomacy so that cancels out the enemy's level modifier. You also get a +3 for it being a class skill. And lets say you're a diplomacy build, so you've got a +4 charisma modifier. Now right there I've got a +7 and I can roll a 25 on an 18 or better. And I haven't even taken skill focus yet or used any of the other myriad ways to get my diplomacy bonus up. So already I can start trading dirt for horses with the local low level commoners. And it just gets worse from there.
Berlew's system is just crazy, and I'm not sure why anyone would support it. It's ridiculously easy to abuse.
We are forgetting something here, ROLE PLAYING. The DM plays the commoner with the horse. It doesn't matter HOW persuasive a PC is if they don't have a sound arguement. Diplomacy isnt a magic spell, if you want to trade dirt for horses you can cast charm spells.
But doing so is pretty much an evil act, as it is the same as stealing.The diplomacy role is for when a player makes a good arguement, but its outcome does not favor the NPC, but the arguement is good and persuasive none the less, the DM asks for a diplomacy role because the NPC is wavering and COULD be convinced.
"Here's some dirt for that horse, yonder" wouldn't even GET you the diplomacy check. You can diplomacy check a wall all day long if you want, but I doubt it will move for you. The arguement you are trying tomake has to be sound (somehow) to begin with.
Starwars episode I "I can pay for the ship parts I need with republic credits"
"Bah, republic credits are no good out here, I need something more real"
"Republic credits, will do fine" (jedi mind trick would be the effect of a real high level diplomacy"
"No they wont"
"Repbulic credits WILL do fine"
"NO they WONT"
Qui Gon Jinn DID have enough money to pay for the parts he needed, BUT they were not in a currency recognized in the system in which he wanted to buy the parts. Trying to convince Watto to take the money was a reasonable situation for a diplomacy check (which would have failed on such a hard target)
IF Qui Gon had enough money to pay for the parts in the proper currency, no diplomacy chek would have been needed, as it was a simple business transaction.
IF Qui Gon wanted to pay less than asking price for the parts, AND had the proper currency, he could have mae adiplomacy check with the following circumstances:
"Ill give you 3/4 of what you are asking for the parts"
"No, full price"
"You yourself, just said the nubian ships are rare, it will be quite sometime, I'm sure, before someone else will need those parts, and I'm Willing to pay for them right now"
This is the decision the NPC has to make, take less money for something in inventory that will likely not move, or hold out for a higher price on something that is rare, but likely wait a long time to see that money?
The Dm says: Make a diplomacy check.
New scenario: "I want you to cut down the tallest tree in the forest, with.... a HERRING!"
This is NOT a case where the DM asks the player for a diplomacy check. He just laughs.
Let's look at the example where the, players are trying to get something for nothing from a magic shop:
Lets say the town is under peril from attacking zombies. The players are the only ones who can confront the necromancer controlling the zombies because.... I dont know, they have a caster type that can use the staff of necromancy the magic shop has, to stop the attacks and take out the necromancer.
Now the PCs argument is "We don't have the money right now, but we WILL play you once we have defeated the necromancer and looted his shiny good-good."
"Bah, you will take my expensive staff an flee this town, never to return and leave us to our ruin and the hands of these undead"
The Paladin steps up, hands the shop keeper a peiece of parchment with the symbol of his god on it, and his own seal and says "IF we do not get this device, the town will be over run none the less and the neromancer will take this staff for his own. You have MY word, that we will use the staff against him, defeat him and return to you with the payment we have agreed to, I will do this, or die trying, if we do fail, your staff will be his if we tried or not"
The arguement is sound, the Dm asks the Pally to make a diplomacy check.
That is roleplaying.
Walking to the magic shop and saying " I make a diplomacy check to see if I can get some free magic items" doesn't work.
Only the DM can tell you when to roll. Its not a video game where you just try your stats against an opposition until it succeeds.
"I am the great horse wisperer, news of me, riding a horse from your stables, will spread far and wide, bringing you many customers to buy your horses, and more wealth than you can desire! If you give me this horse now, I promise you, you can charge triple for any of the other horses here in this stable with in a week!"
This might work comming from a bard against a 0-level commoner.
But it would certainly come with a heafty penalty on the roll. DMs might allow it because it just so silly it might work!
|
|
When you go to the library, you Diplomatically convince the Head Librarian that you should have access to the Restricted Section, by displaying your Knowledge (the planes), while using your Cha to reassure him that you would be using this information for Good...
But without Diplomacy you come over as a "know it all" who thinks the librarian is an idiot....
I'll suggest my "Aid Yourself" idea which works like Aid Another, so that a skill relevant to the conversion adds in (suggested +1/5 levels). You can then represent this as Knowledge plus a bit of diplomacy (unskilled = charisma check) or diplomacy plus a relevant skill aiding the check.
You can still use "Aid Another" with the Diplomatic Bard getting help from the scholar or vice versa.
Beyond that you can also add in any situational modifiers from role-playing as has been suggested.