Diplomacy: Can more than PC attempt?

[Fionavar]

Hi there,

I tried various search patterns and I did not seem to find an appropriate answer. I apologise, therefore, if there is a well establish protocol in this regard. I am about to begin the Slumbering Tsar Saga with my group and Diplomacy (Intimidate and Bluff too) will likely be important at certain points. I am wondering what the protocol is in respect to Diplomacy with multiple characters. I would tend toward saying if someone tries and fails, then that means no one from the party can try again for the stipulated 24 hours. Obviously there may be nuances, but this is where I am tending, but I do not see any specific direction within the rule-set. Any wisdom and direction would be most appreciated!

[Are]

If multiple PCs have an interest in using diplomacy, you could have one person make the main roll, and all others rolling to aid that person's roll (DC 10 to grant a +2 bonus).

[Aureate]

Strictly speaking I don't know that there is a rule against it.

I would allow all the PCs to try a diplomacy check, as they all will use different tactics in trying to win over the NPC.

But remember that failing a diplomacy check by 5+ decreases the NPCs attitude. By extension it may be inferred that the next PC that attempts to persuade may have a more difficult time of it. I would say that would be situational and up to the GM.

If the diplomacy check is really important I would suggest that the PCs work together, (Aid another +2), it might make the difference between being persuasive or not.

EDIT ninja'd

[Erikkerik]

Using aid another is one solution, individual checks is another. If the first person fails, especially if he fails badly, you can include a reasonable penalty to the next person who tries, or just say that the decrease in attitude mentioned by the poster above afffects the whole group.

[strayshift]

Are wrote:

If multiple PCs have an interest in using diplomacy, you could have one person make the main roll, and all others rolling to aid that person's roll (DC 10 to grant a +2 bonus).

I would rule this as the best way to go as giving each pc a roll seems unfair to me - the pcs are proposing their argument as a group with a lead spokesperson.

I would however warn the pcs on character generation these skills are likely to be significant and therefore they should discuss who will undertake the role of party spokesperson or develop which skills. If they ignore yuo then there should be negative consequences for the party.

[Erikkerik]

strayshift wrote:

the pcs are proposing their argument as a group with a lead spokesperson.

Depending on how it is roleplayed, this may or may not be true.

Person one steps forward, gives his argument but fails and offends the person he is speaking to. Person two then steps forward, excuses his friend, and makes a different argument. This should be two seperate checks.

[Rebel Arch]

aureate has the best answer. If we're working sales together and you see I fail to close you can make your attempt, but the NPC might be harder to convince now. The PC should get a chance if they have something to say, just make the DC+2

[The Crusader]

Have you never been tag-teamed by salesmen in a retail setting? Or seen a movie with multiple grifters working a con? Or had Vito Corleone "make you an offer you can't refuse," while Luca Brazi holds a gun to your head?

It is definitely possible to combine social checks. If your players are creative enough, I would even allow cross-checks (i.e. using diplomacy and intimidate together, like good-cop/bad-cop).