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.
It's an opposed roll, you can't 'fail it' except when the NPC rolls a higher diplomatic check. The problem with that is that then the NPC diplomacy is affecting the PC.
The only way a PC could fail a diplomacy check without the NPCs diplomacy affecting him would be if the PC had a specific DC to beat, but since it's an opposed roll, it's not.
It's an opposed roll, you can't 'fail it' except when the NPC rolls a higher diplomatic check. The problem with that is that then the NPC diplomacy is affecting the PC.
The only way a PC could fail a diplomacy check without the NPCs diplomacy affecting him would be if the PC had a specific DC to beat, but since it's an opposed roll, it's not.
If the NPC "Wins" the Opposed Roll (by enough), his reaction to the party is lowered. Same Diff. PC opinion toward him isn't changed, the NPC's Opinion toward the Party is, negatively. The end result is the change you (as a DM) want. The Merchant isn't going to lower his prices, and in fact, because the Party tried to Snowball him, he's going to tack on a slight "Handling Fee" to the prices now. The party is free to go to a different merchant if they want (Free Choice and not Compulsion), but if they want (or have to) deal with this merchant, they have to pay the consequences of it.
You're missing the issue ZugZug.
Except that the Diplomacy skill doesn't work like that ZugZug, nothing in it says if you win, your opinion lowers. It only says you affect an NPC. Therefore, the NPC can't even MAKE an opposed roll, since strict RAW he can't use the skill when a PC is involved.
Therefore, he can't every adjust the PCs, nor can he even attempt the roll, since the PCs are not NPCs, and the skill can't be used against them.
You're missing the issue ZugZug.
Except that the Diplomacy skill doesn't work like that ZugZug, nothing in it says if you win, your opinion lowers. It only says you affect an NPC. Therefore, the NPC can't even MAKE an opposed roll, since strict RAW he can't use the skill when a PC is involved.
Therefore, he can't every adjust the PCs, nor can he even attempt the roll, since the PCs are not NPCs, and the skill can't be used against them.
How are you using the skill then? Technically, you're right, but since you want Diplomacy to work differently than it does already, why not just "Add a Penalty for Failure" as opposed to trying to "Cause the NPCs to make the PCs to act against what they want".
Party walks into a Merchant "We have some stuff to sell"
Merchant says, "I'll give you Xgp for it"
Party has the choice to try to adjust that. If you feel they're abusing it, you make a Penalty for Failure (he'll offer less).
Party walks into a Merchant "We have some stuff to sell for Ygp"
Merhcant says, "Noway is that worth that much, I'll give you Zgp"
Dilpomacy can be used to get to Wgp based on how much they succeed/fail the DC on.
For a Merchant, a price above what is a reasonable price, would increase the DC.
I'm still not seeing WHY the Merchant would have to make a Diplomacy Check against the Party though.
Example 1
Party walks into a Merchant's place - "we want to sell these moldy goblins loin cloths for 1,000,000gp"
Merchant - "Ummm, No"
Party - We make a Diplomacy Check, We have an Adjusted 120 (silly number) Dilpomacy Check
Merchant - "Ummm, No"
Example 2
Party walks into a Merchant's place - "we have some gems to sell"
Merchant looks them over - "I'll give you 100gp for them"
Party knows (metagaming or appraise they're worth 500gp) - We try to haggle with Diplomacy - Roll a 22 on Diplomacy
Merchant - "Alright, you drive a rough bargain, I'll give you 200gp for them, if you don't like that, there's a nice gemstore in the next town over in Gemville, about 2 weeks away"
|
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.
Diplomacy, maybe, since you've always argued that it is a skill that can only be used in highly specific situations.
But, surely, if the NPC had a low Cha, the players would be forced to treat him bad, and conversely, if he had a high Cha, the players would be forced to look up to him?
To do otherwise would be to unfairly penalise those persons who made the effort to invest in the Cha stat.
Wouldn't you say?
And haven't you said exactly that, at length, in the other thread?
|
|
How are you using the skill then? Technically, you're right, but since you want Diplomacy to work differently than it does already, why not just "Add a Penalty for Failure" as opposed to trying to "Cause the NPCs to make the PCs to act against what they want".
You're on the same side; mdt is explaining how the "No Diplomacy on PC's" stance actually makes no sense, since if you follow that stance to its logical conclusion, the merchant isn't even allowed to counter-haggle.
So the PCs always win.
They keep coming back till their best guy rolls natural 20s, and pay rock bottom for everything.
"Full-plate +5 of fortification? Certainly sir, that'll be one piece of dirty string. That was the price we agreed, yes? And may I say, it's been a pleasure doing business with you."
How are you using the skill then? Technically, you're right, but since you want Diplomacy to work differently than it does already, why not just "Add a Penalty for Failure" as opposed to trying to "Cause the NPCs to make the PCs to act against what they want".
You're on the same side; mdt is explaining how the "No Diplomacy on PC's" stance actually makes no sense, since if you follow that stance to its logical conclusion, the merchant isn't even allowed to counter-haggle.
So the PCs always win.
They keep coming back till their best guy rolls natural 20s, and pay rock bottom for everything."Full-plate +5 of fortification? Certainly sir, that'll be one piece of dirty string. That was the price we agreed, yes? And may I say, it's been a pleasure doing business with you."
I guess its a difference of "Rock Bottom" pricing. The PCs say they have something to sell. Merchant gives them a price (starting Haggle price). PCs make a counteroffer (Diplomacy), and if they succeed, they get it closer to what they wanted.
Keep in Mind
PCs want too much - Merchant starts off as Hostile
PCs want WAY too much - Above and Give Dangerous Aid (+10 - giving away merchandise is very hazardous to his business)
PCs want Bargain Bottom - Above and Give Aid that could result in punishment - ie out of business, homeless and starving - (+15 or more)
A Merchant isn't going to sell a 101,650gp set of armor for nothing. He's going to get loads of bonuses to that DC based on how much the PCs want off, because its going to drastically harm his business, livelyhood and family.
So the PCs say they'll pay 50,000, the Merchant won't sell it to the Party. Its under the cost of the item. No Roll should get it to that. They offer 60,000 and that's going to be a really high Roll needed. And they only get 1 chance at it (If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks). As a DM, the merchant isn't ever going under that price, nor is 60,001 a reasonable enough difference to try again.
ZugZug, the point being, that the PCs, because of how diplomacy is written strict RAW, will simply leave the store and come back every day until they roll a natural 20 and get the lowest price you as the GM are willing to go. They will also do the same thing selling.
What you're proposing is to house rule the skill, as it's written, to fix the issue.
I propose to house rule to use the RAI, rather than RAW, to fix the issue. Which would allow the NPC to use diplomacy equally.
My interpretation prevents the 'just wait till you roll high' mentality, and prevents meta-gaming the system. Yours encourages it.
ZugZug, the point being, that the PCs, because of how diplomacy is written strict RAW, will simply leave the store and come back every day until they roll a natural 20 and get the lowest price you as the GM are willing to go. They will also do the same thing selling.
What you're proposing is to house rule the skill, as it's written, to fix the issue.
I propose to house rule to use the RAI, rather than RAW, to fix the issue. Which would allow the NPC to use diplomacy equally.
My interpretation prevents the 'just wait till you roll high' mentality, and prevents meta-gaming the system. Yours encourages it.
Read the "Try Again" section again
You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period. If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made.
If a Request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks.
That's RAW
You walk into a merchant and offer 10% of an items worth, that's as hostile to that merchant as drawing a sword and stabbing an orc and saying "let's talk this out". Once the Merchant is "Hostile" the party can spend a few days getting the merchant up to a more reasonable level with checks, but if they go back to the 10% amount, the Merchant is going to go right back to hostile.
And that was the point of the Goblin Loin Cloths. No Result will get the Merchant to spend 1,000,000gp on them.
|
ZugZug, the point being, that the PCs, because of how diplomacy is written strict RAW, will simply leave the store and come back every day until they roll a natural 20 and get the lowest price you as the GM are willing to go. They will also do the same thing selling.
What you're proposing is to house rule the skill, as it's written, to fix the issue.
I propose to house rule to use the RAI, rather than RAW, to fix the issue. Which would allow the NPC to use diplomacy equally.
My interpretation prevents the 'just wait till you roll high' mentality, and prevents meta-gaming the system. Yours encourages it.
Which is why they included "If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made."
Not to mention, "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
What is all this about using the Diplomacy skill to haggle on prices? By RAW, items have a price, you pay the full price at a merchant, if you sell to a merchant you get half price for selling. There is no RAW mechanic for haggling.
If you want to house-rule that you can use the Diplomacy skill to haggle, that is all well and good, but you are going to have to come up with your own mechanics for it, as there is nothing in RAW about how to handle such a use of the skill.
I just don't understand the argument that if you don't let NPC's alter PCs' attitudes with Diplomacy, somehow, by RAW, the PCs are going to end up with some unreasonable economic advantage.
I remember seeing haggling rules somewhere using Diplomacy but I think it might have been 4E or a Pathfinder supplement, but it's definitely not Core.
I remember seeing haggling rules somewhere using Diplomacy but I think it might have been 4E or a Pathfinder supplement, but it's definitely not Core.
I believe it was one of the Complete books for D&D v.3.5, Adventurer, unless I'm mistaken. It allowed for Diplomacy checks against set DCs to alter the price of goods purchased or sold by 10% or 20% and failing the DC chosen meant that you were stuck with the end price going that much in the wrong direction.
NPC Charisma Checks to Alter Other NPCs’ Attitudes:
Should it come up, an NPC can use a Diplomacy or Charisma
check to influence another NPC. However, NPCs can never
influence PC attitudes. The players always make their characters’
decisions.
This is on Page 128 of the 3.5 DMG.
Unless this was changed in Pathfinder this still holds true.
NPCs can never influence PC attitudes.
|
What if we look to how other social skills affect PC's for some guidance (not necessarily RAW, though). Sense Motive, for example. A PC tries to use Sense Motive to get a feel for a new NPC she meets. Roll. Beats the NPC's Bluff, she gets a bad feeling about him, he's not exactly who he presents himself to be. Or fails to beat his Bluff, he seems to be who he says he is, nice guy even.* In this case, a PC's roll determines how I (as GM) describe the NPC, even how I role-play him to a certain extent. Same is true for Diplomacy - if they make him friendly, I play him as friendly, if they make him hostile, I play him as hostile. On the flip side, if he gets a good Diplomacy role vs. the PC, maybe I play him in such a way that the PC will want to work with him. But that puts a lot of pressure on the GM's acting skills and the players willingness to go along with it.
* I made up a cool little chart once for rolls like this with six columns. The first column has 1-20 in totally random order, the last column has numbers 1-20 in 1-20 order, and the middle columns start mostly random and get more in order as you move toward the end. When a player makes a skill check where I don't want him/her to know the success based on the die roll, I translate his/her roll using my little chart and add his/her skill modifier to the translated number. I decide which column to use based on his/her Wis modifier, basically low Wis, you don't really have a sense if your attempt was good or not, high Wis, you can at least get a sense based on the die if it was decent or not. I figure it's fair because the probabilities are still the same, it just masks the result of the roll from the players.
Ultimately, I'd love to see a more robust social conflict system. Versus arguments that NPCs shouldn't be able to control PCs' attitudes, I see social influence as being no different than combat influence. I can't just say the monster didn't hit my PC because I don't want him to, that's why we have AC and hit rolls and damage. I try to prepare but in the end, if the dice say I'm hit, I bleed. Likewise, I try not to be a rube, but if the dice say I'm fooled by the guy or that he makes me what seems to be a fair offer (even though I'm getting screwed), then so be it. I can't out-of-character disbelieve his Diplomacy any more than I can out-of-character dodge his sword-thrust.
Pathfinder(D&D) isn't a game of social combat.
The players should be able to play there characters.
When die rolls effect character actions it hinders roleplaying.
Players that find it fun to have Charm Person cast on them typically don't care much about there fellow companions anyway. No one likes getting Hold person cast on them.
Social interaction are not analogist to combat. There completely different things.
Social interaction are not analogist to combat. There completely different things.
(Totally NSFW.)
(Totally NSFW.)
Ya, I wasn't expecting that... let's say, little bit towards the end.
Bastards of Golarion came out in 2014... the trait didn't exist at the time of the discussion.
Given the nature of the trait, it does appear possible for NPC's to diplomacize playable characters.
This is awesome, because I have seen PC's ruin interesting encounters with Diplomacy. Time to turn the tables. Force them to be friendly for once.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bastards of Golarion came out in 2014... the trait didn't exist at the time of the discussion.
Given the nature of the trait, it does appear possible for NPC's to diplomacize playable characters.
This is awesome, because I have seen PC's ruin interesting encounters with Diplomacy. Time to turn the tables. Force them to be friendly for once.
I do like that idea and to be honest it's something I'd tell players up front "In my game diplomacy works both ways." simply because it IS a roleplay mechanic not just "Make random guy like me one.'
If you run into the darkly seductive cult leader who's whole role is bringing people under his sway I'm not going to be able to roleplay that properly because I am neither dark, seductive nor charismatic. Having the option of (roll dice + 14 bonus) as the preacher's words role over you it starts to make sense. Its not how you would have gone about it but you can see his point . . . your characters are friendly to him.
Same with other situations I see repeatedly where you have characters begging for their lives and players just going "Quiet you sack of XP." You the player are not you the character and you the character has been swayed by his pleas now roleplay it please.
Senko, I agree about being able to use Diplomacy against the PC's is a valuable tool for roleplaying. I am also not dark, seductive nor charismatic. Lol.
I have prepared pages of notes, days worth of homework for a specific encounter... just to watch the table throw some Diplomacy dice on the table and crush the entire episode into triviality.
Like an army 1,000 red Orcs, mostly comprised of Invulnerable Rager Barbarians, defeated with a single Diplomacy check. Now they are allies to the kingdom, and there's nothing I can do about it. Lol.
It's like, wow guys, I hope that was as fun for you as it was for me...
I'm of the opposite mind from most of the replies in this eld thread. I see a Character stats and mechanics are the script of a movie. You play within that script/role. Don't play your 7 charisma dwarf as a socialite and hope to get around no ranks in Diplomacy with just roleplaying, that is not the character/role you are playing. Same goes with mechanical effects of social skills. If your character is intimidated, play that, if they are befriended, play that.
Otherwise I think its a lazy excuse for sloppy roleplaying. But whatevs make you have fun I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Super necromancy here but... doesn't that make this trait like... mostly worthless?
Doesn't Mostly Worthless describe half the feats and traits ever published?
In this case, it makes a PC resistant to Intimidate effects like Demoralize, which is at least something.
And it can be taken by NPCs to make them more resistant to PC Diplomacy attempts.
(Also: this thread contains a lot of old posts that are pretty dumb and which I want to argue with but can't because they're eight years old. That's why Necromancy is always Evil.)
Super necromancy here but... doesn't that make this trait like... mostly worthless?Doesn't Mostly Worthless describe half the feats and traits ever published?
In this case, it makes a PC resistant to Intimidate effects like Demoralize, which is at least something.
And it can be taken by NPCs to make them more resistant to PC Diplomacy attempts.
(Also: this thread contains a lot of old posts that are pretty dumb and which I want to argue with but can't because they're eight years old. That's why Necromancy is always Evil.)
I mean you could always try to argue with the dead.....
|
|
I mean you could always try to argue with the dead.....Super necromancy here but... doesn't that make this trait like... mostly worthless?Doesn't Mostly Worthless describe half the feats and traits ever published?
In this case, it makes a PC resistant to Intimidate effects like Demoralize, which is at least something.
And it can be taken by NPCs to make them more resistant to PC Diplomacy attempts.
(Also: this thread contains a lot of old posts that are pretty dumb and which I want to argue with but can't because they're eight years old. That's why Necromancy is always Evil.)
It is necromancy, we argue with the undead.
That aside, several feats, traits, prestige classes, and archetypes work well for making specific NPC or if you are heavily into role-playing instead of optimization.
Most people prefer optimization and don't care about NPC options, so hate those and cry about "Mostly Worthless" things.
|
|
In the older posts there is an example of using a diplomacy check to make 1,000 orcs to be friendly and become your army.
There are a few rules that say NO! to that:
1) "A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations." So the hostile orcs become indifferent at most unless the GM thinks that the situation allows more.
So if you make a great presentation about the benefits of attacking a different human kingdom or the elven kingdom and your check is good enough to shift their attitude by four steps you can sway them and make them attack a different target, but you don't get to convince them to change "loot and pillage" into "live peacefully with our neighbours".
2) "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
Even if you have made him helpful, the suicide bomber will not disarm his bomb. Instead, you will get: "Yes brother, you have seen the light, leave this land of sorrow and come with me in the heaven of milk and honey. Boom!" or "My friend, I don't want to kill you, run, I will want until you are safely away before detonating the bomb. Unless the others move. Run!"
3) "Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."
Self-explanatory, I think.
4) "Try Again: You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24-hour period." So, after you have made the orcs indifferent you don't get to pile up attitude changes and make them friendly.
Essentially, Diplomacy isn't mind control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the older posts there is an example of using a diplomacy check to make 1,000 orcs to be friendly and become your army.
Older posts? That was yesterday.
|
|
In the older posts there is an example of using a diplomacy check to make 1,000 orcs to be friendly and become your army.Older posts? That was yesterday.
It is older than a post written today ;-)
I recalled seeing it, but I was under the impression that it was older. It being more recent doesn't change my argument.
Player agency, the importance of choice, blah blah blah.
With that said, the GM is each character's senses, memory and basic understanding of the world. I tell my players what their characters see and what they know about local customs or ancient history and literally everything else.
I also tell them, in a general, broad sort of way, how they feel. Any non-qiantifiable description involves judgement. A kindly innkeeper. A suspicious merchant. Even if I go more subtle--show, dont tell--I'm still guiding the character down a certain lane of thought, even for a moment.
I once had a player who distrusted authority. So when they spoke with the Grail-King, a living saint with a halo burning above his crown, they didn't trust him, "you know, 'cause I don't trust authority."
I told that player that their character had zero reason to mistrust this person. Absolutely zero. And I think I'm within my rights to say so, when a player has wandered so far from the story we're telling. Free will is vital. Randomly declaring random feelings without regard to outside stimuli is obnoxious. It's not collaborative storytelling.
I could see a couple of situations.
1) Verbal duels (cf: Ultimate Intrigue). In such cases, the NPC is absolutely within her rights to attach Diplomacy to one of the duel tactics and roll it against a player.
2) Bargaining. Though Ultimate Campaign technically doesn't allow this, I like the idea of having opposed Diplomacy checks determine an NPC's willingness to negotiate / haggle / bargain.
3) The character is charmed. Yeah, charm spells are the "eat babies to fuel your dark energies" of player agency; but sauce for the lamb and all of that. If players have to use their diplomantic magics to get charmed NPCs to go along with borderline against-nature things, then it's fair to allow the PCs to have some sort of out (can your sense motive "save" you from the enemy's diplo roll to advance the charm's effect on you?) in such cases.
@Diego Rossi: Could be memories of 3.5, where there was a partial 5x5 grid of check DCs to influence. Hostile to helpful was DC 50, which a well-built Diplomancer build could hit fairly easily. However, such builds relied on features such as skill-rank synergy that don't exist in Pathfinder.
Pathfinder allows only two-step changes, or maybe more with GM rulings.
|
|
Player agency, the importance of choice, blah blah blah.
With that said, the GM is each character's senses, memory and basic understanding of the world. I tell my players what their characters see and what they know about local customs or ancient history and literally everything else.
I also tell them, in a general, broad sort of way, how they feel. Any non-qiantifiable description involves judgement. A kindly innkeeper. A suspicious merchant. Even if I go more subtle--show, dont tell--I'm still guiding the character down a certain lane of thought, even for a moment.I once had a player who distrusted authority. So when they spoke with the Grail-King, a living saint with a halo burning above his crown, they didn't trust him, "you know, 'cause I don't trust authority."
I told that player that their character had zero reason to mistrust this person. Absolutely zero. And I think I'm within my rights to say so, when a player has wandered so far from the story we're telling. Free will is vital. Randomly declaring random feelings without regard to outside stimuli is obnoxious. It's not collaborative storytelling.
The player side of a GM I had who insisted my character who (a) knew an assasin with a propensity for poison was after the party and (b) had a necklace that made her immune to poison yet insisted she wouldn't wear it to bed "because you might choke" then had the assasin attack during the two hours my elf was asleep AND attack her in a completely different manner to everyone else that coincidentally negated the ambush I'd set up. Grumble Grumble. I think we're all familiar with the player "I roll sense motive" on every single person they meet or act surprised that people don't like them around when they're consistently starting fights.
...I think we're all familiar with the player "I roll sense motive" on every single person they meet...
Sense Motive is particularly bad for this sort of thing, but I feel that way about every skill, honestly.
Don't tell me that you, the player, want to roll a die and add a number to it. Tell me what your character is doing. I'll tell you which die to roll and which number to add to it.Not only will it prevent players from just trying to use their highest skill / ability score all the time, it'll break them out of their video game logic mindset. It removes restrictions and encourages thoughtful, clever playing that is organic within the narrative and easier to deal with mechanically.
|
|
Perhaps, I admit I would like to have a game that doesn't go. . .
You run into an old man struggling to carry some firewood he asks you to help him.
Player: I role sense motive, gets a 3.
DM "You think he genuinely wants you to help him carry heavy firewood home.
Player: "I don't trust him, I approach cautiously ready for the ambush and run him through."
DM: "He just wanted you to carry the ruddy wood. There isn't an ambush"
Player: "Do I get any XP?"
Far too many expereiences of people taking a failed roll to mean they didn't detect the evil duplicity as opposed to not making any difference because the person is telling the truth.
Exactly. The Angry GM would suggest such a situation be handled thusly:
DM: You see an old man struggling to carry some firewood. He asks you to help him.
Player: I role sense motive. 17.
DM: Nice roll. So what do you want to do about the old man with the firewood?
Player: ...that's what I was rolling for.
DM: Oh, I see. Well, the old man is impressed with your roll, too. But he doesn't have his dice on him, and at any rate he's a little busy with this firewood...
Seriously. Staring at your character sheet and declaring that you want to roll dice is not role playing. That's just playing Monopoly or Risk. "I try to kill them" is so much better than "I roll Diplomacy".
Semi-related, I always thought it was weird that, where as with attacks and physical and mental skill checks, people roll the die and then determine what happened, but when you want to roll a social skill, people flip it; they want to now what you're gonna do and THEN ask to roll the die.
Semi-related, I always thought it was weird that, where as with attacks and physical and mental skill checks, people roll the die and then determine what happened, but when you want to roll a social skill, people flip it; they want to now what you're gonna do and THEN ask to roll the die.
That's only true from a certain perspective and in some cases.
GM: "What attack action are you taking?"
Player: "Swing my sword!"
GM: "At the enemy, at his weapon, at his hand to disarm him? Need to know."
Player: "At him! I just want damage."
GM: "Ok, roll to hit."
It's at this level that social skills work.
GM: "What social action are you taking?"
Player: "Talk to him!"
GM: "Are you going to try to trick him, sweet-talk him, threaten him? Need to know."
Player: "Umm, trick him! I'm gonna pretend to be his superior officer, out of uniform because it's an emergency, and he better snap to it!"
GM: "Ok, roll to bluff."
In these two examples, we need to know what you're doing so that we can determine what you're rolling. In the combat example, it could be an Attack Roll, a CMB (sunder) that doesn't provoke because you have the feat, or a CMB (disarm) that provokes because you don't have the feat. In the social example, your approach dictates whether you need to roll bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate.
You'll see players roll diplo, then describe their approach in terms which should have called for bluff or intimidate checks.
|
|
Exactly. The Angry GM would suggest such a situation be handled thusly:
DM: You see an old man struggling to carry some firewood. He asks you to help him.
Player: I role sense motive. 17.
DM: Nice roll. So what do you want to do about the old man with the firewood?
Player: ...that's what I was rolling for.
DM: Oh, I see. Well, the old man is impressed with your roll, too. But he doesn't have his dice on him, and at any rate he's a little busy with this firewood...
Seriously. Staring at your character sheet and declaring that you want to roll dice is not role playing. That's just playing Monopoly or Risk. "I try to kill them" is so much better than "I roll Diplomacy".
Semi-related, I always thought it was weird that, where as with attacks and physical and mental skill checks, people roll the die and then determine what happened, but when you want to roll a social skill, people flip it; they want to now what you're gonna do and THEN ask to roll the die.
I like that, an approach I'll have to keep in mind.
That's only true from a certain perspective and in some cases...
That's not quite what I was referring to.
Of course it's only true in certain situations; there is no way a singular trend could apply to something that broad with that many variables (i.e. infinite).What I was talking about is the tendency to determine how likely a character's success or failure is by what the player is capable of. If the player is struggling to come up with a specific something believable/diplomatic/intimidating, you shouldn't give them a penalty. That's like giving someone a penalty on an attack roll because they can't swing a sledgehammer to your satisfaction.
Your examples are illustrations of Intention; what you hope to achieve.
A player should always provide an intention and an approach (how you plan to realize your intention), and a GM should always identify them before adjudicating the action.
I once had a player who distrusted authority. So when they spoke with the Grail-King, a living saint with a halo burning above his crown, they didn't trust him, "you know, 'cause I don't trust authority."
Seems reasonable. If I'm playing a suspicious character, why would that character not be suspicious of this freaky stranger? Real holy men tend to be modest and unassuming. They don't dress in glowing crowns. Is this some crazed fanatic? A lich in disguise? I'll try to judge him by his actions and not by his appearance, but he's not making it easy.
I told that player that their character had zero reason to mistrust this person. Absolutely zero. And I think I'm within my rights to say so, when a player has wandered so far from the story we're telling. Free will is vital. Randomly declaring random feelings without regard to outside stimuli is obnoxious. It's not collaborative storytelling.
If the GM controls even the PCs feelings, then no, that is not collaborative storytelling. It's just storytelling.
|
|
3) The character is charmed. Yeah, charm spells are the "eat babies to fuel your dark energies" of player agency; but sauce for the lamb and all of that. If players have to use their diplomantic magics to get charmed NPCs to go along with borderline against-nature things, then it's fair to allow the PCs to have some sort of out (can your sense motive "save" you from the enemy's diplo roll to advance the charm's effect on you?) in such cases.
Don't confuse Charmed with Dominated, or Charmed (by spell/power) with charmed by an alluring person. They are all different from each other.
|
|
...I think we're all familiar with the player "I roll sense motive" on every single person they meet...Sense Motive is particularly bad for this sort of thing, but I feel that way about every skill, honestly.
Don't tell me that you, the player, want to roll a die and add a number to it. Tell me what your character is doing. I'll tell you which die to roll and which number to add to it.Not only will it prevent players from just trying to use their highest skill / ability score all the time, it'll break them out of their video game logic mindset. It removes restrictions and encourages thoughtful, clever playing that is organic within the narrative and easier to deal with mechanically.
Personally I feel that Sense motive should be a mostly passive skill, where your GM should always consider what is the value of your skill +10 and give you hunches based on the result.
If you have reasons to be suspicious you can declare that you are focusing on someone to use it actively, but the roll should always be secret.
Seems reasonable. If I'm playing a suspicious character, why would that character not be suspicious of this freaky stranger? Real holy men tend to be modest and unassuming. They don't dress in glowing crowns.
If it seems reasonable within the context I mentioned it, you are mistaken. I apologize for not making it more clear.
The king was...well. A king. A knight and a monarch who, at the age of 14, found the Violet Grail and was blessed by the heavens, bearing the mark of the Grail's favor in the form of a pearly aura of ghostly fire. This was all common knowledge to the players and the world at large.Now, this setting was also less grey, morally speaking. Good and evil were simpler, purer forces than they are in the real world, or even many D&D games.
Furthermore, the player was not saying that they suspected the halo, the boy-king, the whole shebang, was a ruse. I could have worked with that. "Okay, so I guess you're a conspiracy nutter. Interesting direction to go in." No, this player was telling me that authoritative figures are corrupt and shifty, including this guy. Based off of a person bias founded in nothing, after the characters were granted a tremendous boon.
It was a pointed and deliberate failure to ignore information about the NPC, the setting and the game in favor of...whatever it is that motivates selfish players to be difficult for the sake of it. Which they later admitted to and apologized for.
If the GM controls even the PCs feelings, then no, that is not collaborative storytelling. It's just storytelling.
Agreed. Just like when the players ignore information the GM gives them in order to hold to a course that is otherwise unreasonable.
If I tell you "dragons don't exist" or "wizards are all evil", then those things are facts. It's my setting, my game, my labor and my time. You want to insist that your character is a kindly old half-dragon wizard, I'm going to tell you to piss off and run your own game.
I am neither dark, seductive nor charismatic. Having the option of (roll dice + 14 bonus) as the preacher's words role over you it starts to make sense. Its not how you would have gone about it but you can see his point . . . your characters are friendly to him.
Well I am dark, seductive, and charismatic (/s), but being able to look at the stats and see the NPC has invested in diplomacy to X degree tells me to what level I need to tone said dark, charismatic seduction up or down to convince the players.
Of course, the ideal is to be able to get the players to not realize they are being duped, but just like characters in movies will do things that are dumb and not notice obvious things, the player realizing that their character is losing to diplomacy and makes the character act accordingly, even if the cognitive dissonance is momentarily painful, is in my book a better roleplay than "Hey you want to join my team?" --"No, now die."
Personally I feel that Sense motive should be a mostly passive skill...
Yes. And knowledge skills. And as many other instances of every other skill you can justify to keep things rolling.
Some players seem to feel weird when they haven't rolled a die in the past thirty seconds. Now, as a GM, that may mean I need to present more challenges or up the pacing. But I will not tolerate attempts to fluff out the game with meaningless skill checks. Sense motive is definitely the worst offender.
"I use Sense Motive."
"...okay, but what do you do?"
"Sense motive!"
But WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY DOING? Intention and approach. INTENTION AND APPROACH.
|
|
Yes. And knowledge skills. And as many other instances of every other skill you can justify to keep things rolling.
You baited me. ;-)
I let it be for easy gaming, but the idea that you go to another world, see something that is rare even there and recognize it and know its abilities because is an humanoid and you have a high Knowledge (local) is something that gives me stomach acids.
Even more, if you are running an AP where you started at level 1 and never had the time to study something more beyond what did you learned at level 1.
...I let it be for easy gaming, but the idea that you go to another world, see something that is rare even there and recognize it and know its abilities because is an humanoid and you have a high Knowledge (local) is something that gives me stomach acids...
I agree, the effects of the knowledge skill can be extremely odd and unsatisfying. I was referring more to the silliness of actively rolling it. Either you know something or you don't, it's not really a matter of effort. Using it to represent whether or not you can remember a fact is better, but only slightly.
|
|
...I let it be for easy gaming, but the idea that you go to another world, see something that is rare even there and recognize it and know its abilities because is an humanoid and you have a high Knowledge (local) is something that gives me stomach acids...I agree, the effects of the knowledge skill can be extremely odd and unsatisfying. I was referring more to the silliness of actively rolling it. Either you know something or you don't, it's not really a matter of effort. Using it to represent whether or not you can remember a fact is better, but only slightly.
In theory, as you can't retry a roll unless you have access to a library or the skill (not the modifier) increase you would have to record every skill check result and use the old result. On the other hand, without the skill, in theory, you never learn a creature weaknesses and special abilities even if you have fougth it hundredth of times ....
|
|
In theory, as you can't retry a roll unless you have access to a library or the skill (not the modifier) increase you would have to record every skill check result and use the old result. On the other hand, without the skill, in theory, you never learn a creature weaknesses and special abilities even if you have fougth it hundredth of times .......I let it be for easy gaming, but the idea that you go to another world, see something that is rare even there and recognize it and know its abilities because is an humanoid and you have a high Knowledge (local) is something that gives me stomach acids...I agree, the effects of the knowledge skill can be extremely odd and unsatisfying. I was referring more to the silliness of actively rolling it. Either you know something or you don't, it's not really a matter of effort. Using it to represent whether or not you can remember a fact is better, but only slightly.
Maybe treat Knowledge skills as always modifier +10 or just the modifier no die roll? Your knowledge is 15 you recognize this as a Mowgli and there was something important about feeding it but you can't quite recall what.
Skill checks are weird like that.
On one hand, you don't expect the person playing the Bard to be on point charismatic and always have the right thing to say... his character just needs the ranks in the right skills and the right stats to be high enough.
Not everyone that plays a character that uses Intimidate has to know all the best insults or has to in any way intimidating themselves.
Yet, players that have a broader knowledge of the monsters from past experience don't need to make the Knowledge checks to identify the monsters' weaknesses... is that fair? Should the player's knowledge affect their character's ability to know what they are looking at? Can you honestly expect to enforce such a thing anyways?
People play these games for various reasons, but nobody is dedicating their time to play these games just to be restricted to what they are in real life. Someone ugly like me might want to play as a Bard. I'm not a Bard in real life, I don't like people, and I never have the exact right thing to say. My Bard character has Charisma like a Sorcerer, and ranks in all the right skills. I say my intent, and let the dice speak for my Bard.
I really like that example of not punishing the character just because the player can't swing a sledgehammer to the GM's satisfaction. Lol.
But at the same time, do you penalize extraordinary roleplaying because they lack the ranks/stats on their character sheet to back it up?
Do you penalize actual player knowledge because their character is a moron?
Yet, players that have a broader knowledge of the monsters from past experience don't need to make the Knowledge checks to identify the monsters' weaknesses... is that fair? Should the player's knowledge affect their character's ability to know what they are looking at? Can you honestly expect to enforce such a thing anyways?
This is why our group calls for knowledge checks. I'm one of those weird people that reads monster manuals for fun. So, while I might know that hopping vampires can be banished by throwing cooked white rice at them. I don't know if my character is also aware of that obscure fact. So, I make a check and have my character act on the knowledge given to me by the DM. Even if it's a fairly "common" monster such as a troll.