|
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?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting idea.
I agree diplomacy is too wide. 1st edition Mechwarrior had Diplomacy (for nobles) Streetwise (for, well the streets) and Backstairs (for servants of nobility and the like)
As long as they remained untrained rolls, I like this idea. It would give the master-of-disguise-rogue a tangible benefit to taking a rank of profession (baker) here and a rank of profession (dungsweeper) there. Or the peseant-turned-hero relates to the common man because he 'speaks their language' with profession (farmer)
|
|
That's the idea. The rolls would be allowed untrained, but if you had an extra rank here or there, it won't hurt.
It would also be up to the player to figure out which skills would help them 'seal the deal'. Maybe you don't know the first thing about the nobility, but if you find out the Baron likes a tipple, your ranks of Craft (Brewer) might give you a way to steer the conversation.
PC: "Oh, yes, I recognise this hoppy flavour. The monks of that abbey used to do a wonderful weissbrau. Alas, we'll see no more of that..."
Baron (in Brian Blessed voice): "Why, whatever do you mean?"
PC: "Oh, didn't you hear? The abbey was abandoned when the raiders came over the border. Made a total mess of the harvest.."
Baron: "Good Lord! We can't have that! Where is my Captain! Assemble the Cavalry! (etc)"
The skills don't need to be held by the same person, either. There's nothing to stop one person with one skill, saying "May I introduce you to my friend, I think you and he will get on well. He likes those same things you do...". Bombard the guy from different angles, so you're not relying on one roll.
I like the idea, as it gives more value to the ranks invested in Knowledge and Profession, or whatever Skill might be appropriate to use.
Could be very neat to turn skills like Profession & Craft into more than just money savers
.
stare blankly when you ask them what, exactly, they are going to say.
which is probably mainly caused by the equation Player =/= PC
when the player has not read a stack of fantasy novelsor simply doesn't have the memory for the lingo used therein.
"ho landlord, four pints of your finest ale if you may"
(which according to Pterry might actually get you killed in some pubs in England)
|
|
stare blankly when you ask them what, exactly, they are going to say.
which is probably mainly caused by the equation Player =/= PC, when the player has not read a stack of fantasy novels, or simply doesn't have the memory for the lingo used therein.
Maybe 'exactly' was a poor choice of word.
I don't expect a Shakespearean monologue, and I accept that some players are more reticent than others, but I just want the general details.
What excuse are you going to use, to get your foot in the door?
What sort of tone do you want to set? (A humble request? Chummy equals? Paternalistic superior?) It can make difference; the first could be seen as weakness, the latter could be expected by servants. ("Ee called me zirr; oi reckon ee be an impostorrr...")
What are you aiming to gain? (You might not get the full package, but something close.)
What are you offering? This seems to be the step that most min/maxers miss, thinking that they just need to turn up, roll a die, and then get given free shinies. The target has to think there's something in it for them. It doesn't have to be wealth, it can be intangibles, like friendship, reputation, peace of mind.
Asking a player for these elements helps give a DM a better appreciation of the situation, and he can tailor the result accordingly, not just with pluses and minuses to the roll, but what a success or failure actually means. A failed business proposition might allow a retry, if they adjust the terms; a botched seduction could result in you fleeing down the ivy, while she shrieks for the guards.
Hopefully, after you prompt the players a few times, they'll start getting better at putting themselves in other people's shoes, and start making these suggestions themselves, which should improve their real-life social skills far better than just grunting "I use Diplomacy. <roll> 38. What do I get?".
Hopefully, after you prompt the players a few times, they'll start getting better at putting themselves in other people's shoes, and start making these suggestions themselves, which should improve their real-life social skills far better ...
which would be a nice by product, sort of
Player
lim->PC
... than just grunting "I use Diplomacy. <roll> 38. What do I get?".
Diplomacy could be converted as 'general chitchat' used in order to find out which specific skill is helpful to extract more information.
Gather Information has been rolled into it, maybe it should be used the other way around New Diplomacy = Gather Information and for real achievement the information gathered has to be used with a 'Diplomacy via Knowledge(whatever)' check.PC can't relate = PC can't negotiate
.
What excuse are you going to use, to get your foot in the door?
usually I use masterwork thieves tools /me runs & hides.
I'd rather not create a whole new subsystem based on social interactions that don't currently exist.
To address what the OP said:
If a shop owner, under no circumstances, would give out free goods, then it doesn't matter how "helpful" they might be. The DM has the final say on how the NPC reacts, since that's his job.
I like the general idea, I'm afraid that as I'm reading it that a system like this would require a more skill points per class than is currently given. Again, the old argument for a 4 minimum over 2, but as this isn't happening...
How else to implement it? Or am I misunderstanding?
I'd rather not create a whole new subsystem based on social interactions that don't currently exist.
To address what the OP said:
If a shop owner, under no circumstances, would give out free goods, then it doesn't matter how "helpful" they might be. The DM has the final say on how the NPC reacts, since that's his job.
Indeed. The best method that I've find is to come up with a list of reasonable favours that an NPC would be willing to do, and assign those favours a DC. That how 90% of diplomacy checks work in published modules as well.
Then you don't have to worry about "Diplomacy mind control" where a good check can do anything.
|
Any Thoughts?
I really, really like this idea of yours. I am going to steal this for my home game if you don't mind.
As GM, I have never allowed players to simply roll the dice on a Diplomacy check without role playing being involved (and directly affecting the DC/check mod). Your system scratches an itch I've had with Diplomacy for a while now. It works on so many levels! (Especially for making Knowledge more relevant and useful) Again, kudos to you!
To the OP and other posters, as the GM it is really your duty to take into account your NPCs intelligence, motives, desires, weaknesses etc. when determining what is a probable or even possible outcome from any interaction with the PCs. If your NPCs are simply a stat block to be run over by the PCs, whether in combat or with a skill check, well, then, you aren't doing your game any service.
Similarly, you should be doing your best to involve all your PCs by engaging them in the conversation/role playing by whatever means necessary. Unless your players routinely separate to deal with things individually, the other PCs do not fade into the background just because one character has taken on the role of group spokesman. Have your NPCs engage the other PCs in the conversation, not just the "designated" speaker. Draw them in with an offhand comment, question, compliment or even an insult. Do something to get them involved. Don't let them sit back and coast through the role playing bits or feel that they cannot contribute in this area.
I usually give bonuses (or penalties) based on what other members of the group have said during the role played conversation, to the Diplomacy check made by the spokesman. I find it encourages involvement.
Anyhow, just my thoughts.
Cheers!
|
|
The problem is that nowhere in the skill description is that actually said. All that is stated in the text is that the DM can cap the improvement to attitude by only 2 steps if he wants. That's it.
If indeed this is the way that diplomacy is intended to be played, with a lot of DM fiat, then I think it needs that specifically written in within the skill description. A single sentence or two would be all that it would take and it'd plug up the abusive diplomacy master loophole.
Sometimes common sense needs to come into play. Not everything needs an explicit rule. Ultimately, each GM is the final authority in their respective games, not the rule book. If your players are building a "power" diplomat to abuse the game and subvert the adventure then you have to correct that by not allowing the dice or rule wording "loopholes" to ruin play.
Besides, you can always set the DC for extremely unlikely scenarios like the one you propose in the OP as high as you see fit. The player can then roll and fail if needed.
If Charm spells and the like do not allow creatures/NPCs to act against their nature then Diplomacy checks should not be allowed to either.
Cheers.
And that's fine. But the rules actually need to say that.
Sometimes common sense needs to come into play. Not everything needs an explicit rule. Ultimately, each GM is the final authority in their respective games, not the rule book. If your players are building a "power" diplomat to abuse the game and subvert the adventure then you have to correct that by not allowing the dice or rule wording "loopholes" to ruin play.Besides, you can always set the DC for extremely unlikely scenarios like the one you propose in the OP as high as you see fit. The player can then roll and fail if needed.
If Charm spells and the like do not allow creatures/NPCs to act against their nature then Diplomacy checks should not be allowed to either.
I think that the Charm and Diplo rules need some clarification, but it would be easy to waste ink being explicit for the sake of people who just won't get it anyway.
I'm all for adding an explanation that "neither Charm spells not Diplomacy cause an NPC to act against their nature or common sense. A merchant will not give away goods for free, and a humanoid will use violence against it's friends and allies. That kind of manipulation generally requires more powerful magic such as a Dominate spell."
Anything more specific is probably a waste of space.
The Diplo DCs are useful, but they are no replacement for GM judgement and roleplaying. I don't think a "nerf" is in order, though.
Snorter: this is a good idea that deserves its own thread with something that calls Jason's attention. I imagine it might be very persuasive to the game designer if you work it up in a formal presentation.
All a Diplomacy check does is allow you to influence their reaction. You can move someone to "Helpful", but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be willing to let you borrow their life savings or take their +5 Vorpal Greatsword out for a night on the town.
That being said, I do think that some additional language regarding Diplomacy, Bluff, Charm spells, and Illusion spells would really help clarify what rules lawyers can and cannot do with these abilities.
|
|
It would also be up to the player to figure out which skills would help them 'seal the deal'. Maybe you don't know the first thing about the nobility, but if you find out the Baron likes a tipple, your ranks of Craft (Brewer) might give you a way to steer the conversation.The skills don't need to be held by the same person, either. There's nothing to stop one person with one skill, saying "May I introduce you to my friend, I think you and he will get on well. He likes those same things you do...". Bombard the guy from different angles, so you're not relying on one roll.
There needs to be a specific reference to "Aid Another" to allow PCs to help where their skills are relevant.
Further, your own skills should help, call it "Aid Yourself", where the DM decides which skills give a synergy type effect based on the circumstances. I would allow +1 per 5 levels since it's easier for one person to combine skills than taking advice from others.
Thus, if by roleplay your PC discovers the Baron likes a tipple, the DM allows you to add your bluff to your diplomacy +1/5 levels based on previous conversation with the brewer - since a little knowledge goes a long way when bluffing. This encourages the PCs to find out what helps them influence NPCs.
Alternatively, if the PCs are trying to browbeat a timid noble, Intimidate would be the useful secondary skill. "Nice kingdom, shame if something happened to it".