Then as we started discussing things, something struck me:
The king of bards,
Is there a reason for NPCs to ever have the skill, when PCs are "immune" to it? Something I to this day can't say I approve of, as it means the GM has to put on a Broadway performance and actually sway the players to influence their PCs, while they can go "I tell him to do stuff. Get 32 on my skill. What's my argument? Who cares? I have +20!"
The only reason the NPC in question lived was because I handled his social skill rolls behind the screen, and none of them have high enough sense motive to catch his bluff results even on a 20. So I could lie as I felt like, and play the PCs up against each other. But that was all ME as a GM. Had I rolled low enough to warrant them to roll, they would have caught on, and there would likely be another outcome.
(Note: This did not change much except that the goodly cleric of Sarenrae insisted they gave him a chance to redeem himself and not strip him of all his earthly possessions like a raving band of bandits.)
Edit: Spoilers
If a tree falls in the forest, and no PC is around to hear it, does it make a noise? That sounds like a similar sort of question.
Gearing up an NPC with only PC-relevant abilities strikes me as a fairly gamist approach - nothing matters but how the PCs will interact with the NPC in game. Some of us have a more simulationist approach. We want the NPC to make sense if the game action were from the NPCs' perspectives as well. Why does a skeezy NPC have allies in the first place? He's got the diplomacy to pull it off. So what if it doesn't work on PCs? It would have worked on other NPCs and justify some of the situations in the game.
I guess there's really no mechanical solution to force pc reactions on a npc diplomacy use. But if your players are avid roleplayers and try to stay true to their characters they might understand what it means when a GM says something like "his arguments are utterly convincing and his suggestions are obviously the best way to handle the situation".
In my games it's always the players who initiate their sense motive rolls, and if they roll high and I say "You are quite sure he's trustworthy" - well, all the better for the NPC with high bluff.
We just got through Kingmaker Part 5, ***spoiler omitted***
Is there a reason for NPCs to ever have the skill, when PCs are "immune" to it? Something I to this day can't say I approve of, as it means the GM has to put on a Broadway performance and actually sway the players to influence their PCs, while they can go "I tell him to do stuff. Get 32 on my skill. What's my argument? Who cares? I have +20!"
The only reason Irovetti lived was because I handled his social skill rolls behind the screen, and none of them have high enough sense motive to catch his bluff results even on a 20. So I could lie as I felt like, and play the PCs up against each other. But that was all ME as a GM. Had I rolled low enough to warrant them to roll, they would have caught on, and there would likely be another outcome.
(Note: This did not change much except that the goodly cleric of Sarenrae insisted they gave him a chance to redeem himself and not strip him of all his earthly possessions like a raving band of bandits.)
I have made NPCs used dipolmacy as a 'defense' vs a players diplomacy roll. IE: When the PCs roll diplomacy to haggle with a merchant I make it a contested roll. If a PC and a NPC are both trying to influence a NPC it is contested roll..etc. These might go beyond the rules as written...but I don't think it is too much of a stretch of the rules.
|
Dipliomacy can't affect PCs, but it can help determine how well an NPC can affect other NPCs, on screen or off. If the PCs and an NPC are both arguing for the support or alliance of a third party, an opposed Diplomacy check would be just the thing to determine who had the better-worded argument.
The same could be true of a political debate in front of a crowd.
|
First off, spoilers are bad. I'm still kind of hoping to PLAY Kingmaker, and throwing NPC names around in this context is BAD outside the Kingmaker board. Now I have to actively suppress that memory and hope by the time I play Kingmaker I've forgotten it completely.
Second, and to answer your first question;
NPCs have two uses for Diplomacy:
1. They can influence other NPCs. Killing someone is a lot harder when they have literally everyone but the PCs on their side. I mean, having four to six people in the entire world who are immune to it rarely makes something useless.
2. You can also user their Diplomacy score as a general guideline on how charming to roleplay them, and how you describe them to PCs. This is harder, but surely you know what kind of NPCs your players have liked in the past? Make sure that high Diplomacy or Charisma NPCs have some personality traits the PCs have liked in the past, and that low-Charisma/Diplomacy NPCs are annoying or rude. If you've got any acting skills (and I'd hope you do, you're the GM after all) this should be doable. It won't always work, but it's got a decent success rate in my experience.
The only reason [CENSORED] lived was because I handled his social skill rolls behind the screen, and none of them have high enough sense motive to catch his bluff results even on a 20. So I could lie as I felt like, and play the PCs up against each other. But that was all ME as a GM. Had I rolled low enough to warrant them to roll, they would have caught on, and there would likely be another outcome.
This is a Bluff question, not a Diplomacy question, still: In this situation you could make the rolls for the PCs. They wouldn't know what you were rolling for, so it should work.
Alternately, have them roll Sense Motive sometimes even when people are telling the truth. Getting the players into the habit of rolling Sense Motive all the time, not only when NPCs lie, is a good tactic and one I use regularly enough that my players are never quite sure whether the NPC is lying. Though on high Sense Motive rolls they ususlly assume...;)
I prefer the second solution, but it involves some prep work, as you have to establish the pattern before they'll realize that you're having them roll against honest people.
I guess there's really no mechanical solution to force pc reactions on a npc diplomacy use. But if your players are avid roleplayers and try to stay true to their characters they might understand what it means when a GM says something like "his arguments are utterly convincing and his suggestions are obviously the best way to handle the situation".
I play the goodly cleric of Sarenrae, and I didn't break character at all when we found the NPC in question. I absolutely argued to let him out immediately, the wizard pulled his sliding towards LE and threatened to leave party if we did. And our king's input was completely ignored.
I've had previous interactions with the NPC in solo RP and gleaned nothing with my impressive sense motive even when I as a PC was sure he was spouting bull. But what I also learned as a character when I bothered to visit our neighboring kingdom myself to help people is that Pitax has laws, and not just a half dozen murder happy mercs enforcing them, but an entire political infrastructure. My character knew that letting him rot would accomplish nothing, but showing him kindness just might set him towards the righteous path. That's high wisdom and faith in humanity speaking, though, not high int.
|
|
+1 on getting the party used to Sense Motive rolls -- and then they'll be so acclimated to getting the "he may be hiding something" response in common situations (like haggling with neutral-alignment vendors in marketplaces) that they won't think it unusual to get the same result from more important NPCs.
Another reason for an NPC to have Diplomacy is that it makes sense for the NPC to have Diplomacy.
If the PCs encounter an NPC accountant, they would expect the NPC to have ranks in the appropriate profession. If the NPC were the master of her profession, she should have a lot of ranks in that profession.
If an NPC is in a prestige class that requires X ranks of Diplomacy, then that NPC should have at least that number of ranks in Diplomacy. After all, PCs trying to get into the PrC need that even if the player plays the PC like John Bolton's less diplomatic brother, so why shouldn't an NPC?
And, of course, there is a difference between an NPC who sounds like he can convince you that you are the best person in the world (not too hard for some people) vs and an NPC who sounds like John Bolton's less diplomatic brother's even less diplomatic brother.
Plus, NPCs are always using Diplomacy with each other, especially if they are in politics or the entertainment industry.
The real question is why should a random farmer have four ranks in knowledge of Drow culture?
The real question is why should a random farmer have four ranks in knowledge of Drow culture?
I think the real question is : Why is it that PCs are immune to a CHA-Based skill? I mean, they are characters as much as NPCs are, and a diplomacy check is as convincing on both sides.
The real question is why should a random farmer have four ranks in knowledge of Drow culture?I think the real question is : Why is it that PCs are immune to a CHA-Based skill? I mean, they are characters as much as NPCs are, and a diplomacy check is as convincing on both sides.
I don't know if PCs are really immune to CHA-based skills. It's just that PCs have players to make decisions for them, so allowing CHA-based skills to have more effect on NPCs makes sense to me. They're skills, they are not magic.
If an NPC wants to Bluff the PCs, the players can decide if what he says is convincing enough to be true, but since they don't have all the non-verbal data that people would have in a real situation, they may make a Sense Motive vs Bluff roll to determine if the NPC seems like he is lying. So that is using a CHA-based skill on the PCs.
Diplomacy, I do not consider this to be the equivalent of a Charm Person spell. I consider three things when abjucating a Diplomacy attempt: what the PC says, how well the PC rolls, and the interests of the NPC in that situation. It's not that Diplomacy is useless; it's just that it is only one factor in what happens.
I suppose there is a question of what happens if an NPC tries something like a non-magical seduction of a PC. In that case I would probably grant an XP bonus to PCs who "played along", but still I would leave it up to the player whether or not the PC was even interested, just as if the PCs were trying to seduce an NPC, they might find that NPC just is not interested.
(In other words, no sense trying to seduce Queen Christina if you are a guy...)
I play loosely along these lines with things like diplomacy: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2
Ok, maybe I'm dense, but isn't Sense Motive supposed to be rolled in secret by the GM? This is an ancillary issue, but it was my first reaction to the thread contents.
In line with Diplomacy for NPCs:
I absolutely use diplomacy for my NPCs - if the PCs let someone talk at them for a minute without killing them, they have to be receptive to being talked to somewhat. I make the check and gauge their disposition and frame the NPCs actions based on the results. A botched diplomacy check will result in the NPC saying something to (hopefully) anger the PCs; a really good result will allow me a great deal of latitude in saying to the players "He says 'blah' and listening to him, it really strikes you that he might be worth listening to." (Or "not killing" depending on context.")
Basically, I'm in the same boat as Martin Kauffman. ^_^
When I DM in a home game setting, I make diplomacy checks for relevant NPC's (in secret): and I adjust their actions accordingly.
this.
moreover, the score is a good hint for the GM in roleplaying the NPC (I.e., how good or bad can be in handling situations involving PCs).
The real question is why should a random farmer have four ranks in knowledge of Drow culture?I think the real question is : Why is it that PCs are immune to a CHA-Based skill? I mean, they are characters as much as NPCs are, and a diplomacy check is as convincing on both sides.
+1
This came up in a game I was playing in last night, except with PvP diplomacy coming under debate. Sadly, the first sentence (and only that sentence) stipulates nonplayer characters.
I don't care for this either. If I sink feats and skill ranks into diplomacy to the point that I can talk a seasoned diplomat into kissing my boots then the 3 CHA PC barbarian should be cake. The sad situation is that influencing players is very different from influencing PCs. I've met many players whose decision making process is completely foreign to the character they are "playing." Having a mechanic to rein them in would be helpful for those of us who don't have the 18 CHA necessary to do so in real life.
As has already been stated, I'm all for the idea that some Non-Player Characters should have diplomancy because while the Player Characters are immune, no one else is. Kings, diplomats, spies, merchants, and whoever else should have ranks in diplomancy because it makes sense for their profession or life style.
I also must say that this is one of my favorite rule in the whole game. I've played with a couple of Dungeon Masters that if it wasn't for that rule they would use it as an easy way to essential take control of the characters. I can see it going like this:
DM: "You stand before the evil sorcerer and he *rolls dice* gives a perfectly convincing argument on why you should murder the good king, hand over all your items, and beat one another to death with the mackel he throws on the floor."
Players: "There's no way we're going to do that!"
DM: "You have too, he got a seventy on his diplmancy check."
True, those kinds of Dungeon Masters are going to figure out a way to try and make you do it anyway, but it least this makes it a little harder.
General if I use it against the Player Character, or they use it against each other, I just ask that they consider the results of the roll when they decide their actions.
The real question is why should a random farmer have four ranks in knowledge of Drow culture?I think the real question is : Why is it that PCs are immune to a CHA-Based skill? I mean, they are characters as much as NPCs are, and a diplomacy check is as convincing on both sides.+1
This came up in a game I was playing in last night, except with PvP diplomacy coming under debate. Sadly, the first sentence (and only that sentence) stipulates nonplayer characters.
I don't care for this either. If I sink feats and skill ranks into diplomacy to the point that I can talk a seasoned diplomat into kissing my boots then the 3 CHA PC barbarian should be cake. The sad situation is that influencing players is very different from influencing PCs. I've met many players whose decision making process is completely foreign to the character they are "playing." Having a mechanic to rein them in would be helpful for those of us who don't have the 18 CHA necessary to do so in real life.
As a GM, I have always considered myself to be (among other things) a "parser" for the players of what their characters experience in the game-world. As such, I see my ability to present the game world as that mechanic.
The difference between PCs and NPCs as presented in the skill description lies in the fact that as the GM, I have limited resources and an unlimited cast of NPCs, so naturally there are going to be more solid mechanics to provide for the resolution of effects on my NPCs - in a number of scenarios and published adventures, certain NPCs are presented with specifically called out things that Diplomacy, no matter how good the check, will not persuade them to do (like the Evil Tyrannical Despot being diplomacized to {let the party go with all of their stuff/indulge them with a detailed monologue of his plans/not kill them instantly} after they've been caught in the midst of fomenting discord and rebellion to depose the Despot). Essentially, the PCs are the logical extension of this restriction, since the Despot is a Main Character but still only one in a cats of hundreds while the players each control a cast of size 1.
That said, if I feel that a character is being played in a manner that is inconsistent, due to a Player-based agenda, I'll say so, and ask the player to justify or revise the actions of his character.
General if I use it against the Player Character, or they use it against each other, I just ask that they consider the results of the roll when they decide their actions.
+1
It should also be noted that Diplomacy requires people to listen for around ten-minutes before a change in opinion is made. To further emphasis “LISTEN” as in pays attention to what is being said, a check pretty much auto-fails when the target isn’t listening to a word they say.
To put simply you can play it out that the NPC speaker is making an honest and well-thought debate that the Players should consider it (within reason of course) and if they refuse (without good reason, whether metagamming or not), it will only be fair to show that when they try to get someone to listen they get blown off in similar fashion.
Example: Trying to convince the King that his Advisor, and best friend, is an evil sorcerer causing mayhem in other lands will pretty much mean that once you say “your advisor is a evil sorcerer” his brain clicks off and simply nods and smiles and says he’ll consider your words…after talking with his advisor of course.
Diplomacy isn’t unbeatable, simply ignore the talker and its whispers in the wind.
The answer is yes especially if they are hitting 50 in modifier.
Subtle words can have missives/ battle field reports/ reports of danger in the Hinterlands redirected to the NPC in question before reaching the king and his advisers. Giving him opportunities to field his own problem solvers and augment his standing among the nobility and the commoners.
Senators can be poisoned against PC's by smooth words that give voice to their fears in regards to the PC's or their influence.
So many ways to destroy/ undermine a kingdom even if diplomacy doesn't work on PC's.
In short if you cant see a way to Jam up PC's with high rank diplomacy NPC's. You need to go read Machiavelli, "how to make friends and influence people", "the gentle art of verbal self defense", Saussure, Foucault, and Chomsky.
Diplomacy works against NPCs. This includes PC followers and summoned/called creatures that can be influenced. Just because you pay someone to follow you around doesn't make them immune to being influenced by others.
Also, it can be interesting to have the NPCs influence other NPCs off-stage to affect the party.
I play loosely along these lines with things like diplomacy: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2
+1, very nice.