"I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM


Gamer Life General Discussion

451 to 500 of 551 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

I use Diplomacy to XXXX.

That is all that is being asked for here.
Not some detailed flowery oscar winning speech.

And again, the player doesn't know x. The DM has no reason to ask for x. X is completely irrelevant. Please explain to me why the player needs to tell the DM x.

Not sure how can the player not know his own personal goal when trying to use diplomacy.
X is not a personal goal. X is one of three very subtle mechanical variations that are often interchangeable. They exist to the player, not the character. The character knows what they want to do. the different uses of diplomacy are how the game emulates that.

Player: I use diplomacy

DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Do you really accept a "I use Diplomacy on the NPC. Got 35.", with no indication of what the player wants from it?

I will try to coax the player into saying something for the joy of role playing. This is strictly for fun, I don't need it for anything mechanically.

Quote:
What favor? Just making the NPC friendlier? Nothing? How do you decide what the result is?

The mod in front of me has that information, and they're (mechanically) no different on the players end. He has a diplomacy roll of x. In front of me is either

Make a DC XYZ check to get bits of information X Y Z
Make a DC Y check to ask then to XXXX
Make a DC Y check to improve their attitude and then a DC Z check based on Y to ask for a favor

What information? What favor?

I mean, yes those are the Diplomacy rules, but if you don't know what the character is doing, how do you know what result to give?

Does it work the same way if the player does give more information? If they say "I'm going to use Diplomacy to improve his attitude", but the module only says "Make a DC Y check to ask then to XXXX", do you automatically have them XXXX if he beats a DC Y or do you have nothing happen since there's no rule in the module for that?

Or do you ever get a response from the player of "Oh. That's not what I was asking for at all."?

Or if the PCs are trying something not on the beaten path of mod and thus not explicitly written down, doesn't it help to know what they're trying?

I guess, where Diplomacy is only allowed for certain specific things in already spelled out situations with only one valid use at a time, your approach kind of makes sense. It's very foreign to me though.
If a PC is going to get an NPC to do X for them, it seems to me that the player should have figured out that he needs to ask for X and convey that to the NPC. Can I just go around using Diplomacy on random NPCs until I hit the one that will do X for me?


Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Do you really accept a "I use Diplomacy on the NPC. Got 35.", with no indication of what the player wants from it?
I will try to coax the player into saying something for the joy of role playing. This is strictly for fun, I don't need it for anything mechanically.

Don't you need to know if the player wants to make the NPC helpful (and therefore not need any rolls to ask for 'normal' favours), or just to get the favour itself (if the NPC is indifferent or friendly). Bearing in mind the DC for a favour changes depending on attitude, this is a factor.

Also, the player needs to know if this is going to be very hard to do - if the NPC starts off hostile the best the player will end up with is an indifferent NPC and that needs to be communicated somehow too.

And the only way you find that out is by actually interacting in some way, unless you announce the attitude of the NPC up front (which might be an issue for a sneaky NPC who doesn't wish their motives and allegiance being overt in such a way).

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
What favor? Just making the NPC friendlier? Nothing? How do you decide what the result is?

The mod in front of me has that information, and they're (mechanically) no different on the players end. He has a diplomacy roll of x. In front of me is either

Make a DC XYZ check to get bits of information X Y Z
Make a DC Y check to ask then to XXXX
Make a DC Y check to improve their attitude and then a DC Z check based on Y to ask for a favor

There are many more interactions possible than the specific ones in the mod..


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.

Ok I reformulate

Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what your character whant to achieve (in character, not mechanics)?

What is the problem with this?.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.

Not "which version of the mechanics?"

"What do want to achieve?"

Though that may come out to be the same thing, it may not. Especially when it comes to asking for favors. Since there are many things a PC could ask for, not all of the same DC.

And really, even mechanically, the difference between "improve his attitude" and "ask him to let me through the door", isn't a particularly subtle or arbitrary one.


thejeff wrote:


I mean, yes those are the Diplomacy rules, but if you don't know what the character is doing, how do you know what result to give?

I have three ways I can tell what the character is doing

1) What the player says when I get them to diplomance someone.
2) What the module says
3) The assumption that the pathfinder is a reasonably trained competent specialist adventurer who is trying something relevant to the mission at hand.

Quote:
Does it work the same way if the player does give more information? If they say "I'm going to use Diplomacy to improve his attitude", but the module only says "Make a DC Y check to ask then to XXXX", do you automatically have them XXXX if he beats a DC Y

Of course!* The roll is the same either way. I might describe it differently (you two pleasantly chat about Galtan politics over coffee and the macguffin comes up in conversation)

*Outside of some rare situational bonuses (like the human druid bonus to shift attitudes)

Quote:
Or do you ever get a response from the player of "Oh. That's not what I was asking for at all."?

It happens on occasion. Sometimes because the roll wasn't high enough and I threw something irrelevant into the conversation, more often because that particular NPC doesn't know the information they're looking for, sometimes because I forgot what that PCs faction mission was.

Quote:
Or if the PCs are trying something not on the beaten path of mod and thus not explicitly written down, doesn't it help to know what they're trying?

Not really. Winging dc x is winging DC x.

Quote:
Can I just go around using Diplomacy on random NPCs until I hit the one that will do X for me?

Time consuming but possible. Probably easy to make a gather info to ask who can do something for you.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.

Bold mine. Welcome to negotiation, in it's most basic form:

"Do you like me?"
"No"
"Could you like me?"
"Yes"
"Will complimenting you on your appearance help"
"No"
"Will saying how intelligent you are matter?"
"Yes"
"You are very intelligent!"
"Thank you"
"Will you tell me this secret?"
"No"
"Not now, or not ever?"
"Not now"
"Did I say how clever you are"
"Yes"
"Well, you're even clever than that"
"Thank you"
"Can I have that secret now?"
"Yes"
"How about a ride to that castle over there?"
"Don't push it"

You get the idea. Hopefully it gets slightly more complex than that in-game!


thejeff wrote:

And really, even mechanically, the difference between "improve his attitude" and "ask him to let me through the door", isn't a particularly subtle or arbitrary one.

Its incredibly arbitrary on two fronts. For one, I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact situation done both ways. Secondly they're mechanically the same , the player is rolling a diplomacy check either way.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And really, even mechanically, the difference between "improve his attitude" and "ask him to let me through the door", isn't a particularly subtle or arbitrary one.

Its incredibly arbitrary on two fronts. For one, I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact situation done both ways. Secondly they're mechanically the same , the player is rolling a diplomacy check either way.

So it plays out "I chat with guard and try to improve his attitude towards me. Diplomacy = 35"

"Success. He lets you through the door."

And then the player is like "I didn't ask to go through the door. I didn't even want to go through the door. What just happened?"

Quote:
Quote:
Or do you ever get a response from the player of "Oh. That's not what I was asking for at all."?
It happens on occasion. Sometimes because the roll wasn't high enough and I threw something irrelevant into the conversation, more often because that particular NPC doesn't know the information they're looking for, sometimes because I forgot what that PCs faction mission was.

I was thinking more of getting the a piece of information or a favor that the player didn't know he was asking for. He thought he was questioning the NPC about something else entirely, but that's the result of successful Diplomacy on this NPC, so you get this result.

But really I think your approach to the game is just so far off what I'm used to that I just can't grasp it.


thejeff wrote:

So it plays out "I chat with guard and try to improve his attitude towards me. Diplomacy = 35"

"Success. He lets you through the door."

And then the player is like "I didn't ask to go through the door. I didn't even want to go through the door. What just happened?"

You... backtrack a bit and don't go through the door yet. I've NEVER had this happen, and it would be no big deal if it did, whereas under your system I would have players doing at best a coin flip on every encounter.

Ok, so exactly WHY are you chatting the guard up if you don't want to go through the door? Presumably if there's a listed DC for talking your way through the door the party will be going through the door at some point, the guard is now friendly and when the scenario railroad passes that way, you'll have succeeded. It doesn't much matter if he lets you through because you convinced him to let you through or because he lets you through if he's your friend.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And really, even mechanically, the difference between "improve his attitude" and "ask him to let me through the door", isn't a particularly subtle or arbitrary one.

Its incredibly arbitrary on two fronts. For one, I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact situation done both ways. Secondly they're mechanically the same , the player is rolling a diplomacy check either way.

So it plays out "I chat with guard and try to improve his attitude towards me. Diplomacy = 35"

"Success. He lets you through the door."

And then the player is like "I didn't ask to go through the door. I didn't even want to go through the door. What just happened?"

Quote:
Quote:
Or do you ever get a response from the player of "Oh. That's not what I was asking for at all."?
It happens on occasion. Sometimes because the roll wasn't high enough and I threw something irrelevant into the conversation, more often because that particular NPC doesn't know the information they're looking for, sometimes because I forgot what that PCs faction mission was.

I was thinking more of getting the a piece of information or a favor that the player didn't know he was asking for. He thought he was questioning the NPC about something else entirely, but that's the result of successful Diplomacy on this NPC, so you get this result.

But really I think your approach to the game is just so far off what I'm used to that I just can't grasp it.

It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG. They only have a preplanned single thing you can do with them. The guard guards the door. That's it. The only possible objective you can resolve with the guard is go through the door. Your choices are "I use weapons" or "I use diplomacy."

He is completely lost at the idea that someone might want to interact with an NPC for a reason other than he has a yellow question mark above his head. That's why he doesn't understand what people mean when they say "what are you trying to accomplish?" He thinks it is a purely mechanical value. "I am trying to accomplish diplomacy" is the only answer he sees to that question and so he views it as redundant.


BigDTBone wrote:
It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG.

No, that's exactly what the other side is proposing. "Oh, you tried to use the key on the lock, it didn't work. You needed to JIGGLE the key in the lock to get it to work". Its DMing like you're a computer that can only interpret options off of a menu.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I realize the Golden Mean is itself a fallacy, but I think a lot of people here are using false dichotomies.

There is a middle ground between 'You need to describe exactly what you do in character' and 'I don't need to know, my skill ranks mean my character can figure it out'.

(Just as there is a middle ground between 'Characters have no way to talk about their abilities in character' and 'Scroll cost is a law of physics'.)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG.
No, that's exactly what the other side is proposing. "Oh, you tried to use the key on the lock, it didn't work. You needed to JIGGLE the key in the lock to get it to work". Its DMing like you're a computer that can only interpret options off of a menu.

As I said, I just can't grasp your approach, though I think I see where you're coming from.

I've rarely played and almost never ran published scenarios/modules. Thus the idea of there being a listed DC for everything the railroad expects you to do is foreign to me.

Generally interactions are more open-ended, with more than one good response possible. And often involve multiple interactions over many sessions. Not just a single Yes/No Diplomacy roll. So the direction the diplomacy takes matters.

As for the menu analogy, your approach seems to discard the menu entirely. Good roll gets the "Success" result, regardless of what the PC wanted to do. Since there's only one "Success" result, that's obviously the good thing to do.

I can see that working well in something as constrained as a PFS scenario. In a longer term more open game, I'd need something more.


I have been confused by your positron too, bnw, just like that other dude you said has been blatantly misreading what you post.

What about the time to change an attitude, and the modifiers for the favors? The attitude being lowered from the result? The order a player would go in to get the best results? Maybe their request was really simple and had a low dc, but you did it in a way that they miserably fail. What if they need to think quickly with the guard before getting caught by others who are on their tail? It's too complicated and can be unfair to everyone in my opinion.

Simply say what you want to accomplish, and roll. Your check will determine if you got kicked in the family jewels, or convinced balor to you're family bbq.

Pick the mechanic, summarize how you want to use it, then your character does the rest.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG.

No, that's exactly what the other side is proposing. "Oh, you tried to use the key on the lock, it didn't work. You needed to JIGGLE the key in the lock to get it to work". Its DMing like you're a computer that can only interpret options off of a menu.

Dude! That is EXACTLY what you are saying!

Quote:
The mod in front of me has that information, and they're (mechanically) no different on the players end. He has a diplomacy roll of x.

It doesn't get anymore video gamey than that! Also, the fact that you keep assuming only one objective per interaction is evidence of your video game mentality. Folks aren't trying to get players to say "I jiggle the handle" they are trying to determine if with your diplomacy check you want to 1)get through the door, 2) ask the guard information about a) his master b) the activity in and out of the door lately c) where to get good coffee nearby, 3) borrow his uniform, 4) etc etc.

It is NOT a single opportunity objective.


Ross Byers wrote:

I realize the Golden Mean is itself a fallacy, but I think a lot of people here are using false dichotomies.

There is a middle ground between 'You need to describe exactly what you do in character' and 'I don't need to know, my skill ranks mean my character can figure it out'.

(Just as there is a middle ground between 'Characters have no way to talk about their abilities in character' and 'Scroll cost is a law of physics'.)

I think we've moved past that, though it did come up a lot earlier.

As near as I can tell, we're now at the "You need to give some indication what you're doing, even out of character, beyond the mechanics of Diplomacy = 32" vs "Make the skill roll and you get the thing this NPC exists to provide"


BigNorseWolf wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
It's because BNW is running NPC's like they are in a video game RPG.

No, that's exactly what the other side is proposing. "Oh, you tried to use the key on the lock, it didn't work. You needed to JIGGLE the key in the lock to get it to work". Its DMing like you're a computer that can only interpret options off of a menu.

I don't understand where you're getting this interpretation with the people who figure an in between is the appropriate method. A general "I use diplomacy" to me is extremely video game like, and makes me cringe at playing a role playing game. I don't see why the summary method isn't reasonable for you, and I absolutely say you're either doing the summary, or you're running the gauntlet of speaking it all out, and most people don't want the gauntlet.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

I realize the Golden Mean is itself a fallacy, but I think a lot of people here are using false dichotomies.

There is a middle ground between 'You need to describe exactly what you do in character' and 'I don't need to know, my skill ranks mean my character can figure it out'.

(Just as there is a middle ground between 'Characters have no way to talk about their abilities in character' and 'Scroll cost is a law of physics'.)

I think we've moved past that, though it did come up a lot earlier.

As near as I can tell, we're now at the "You need to give some indication what you're doing, even out of character, beyond the mechanics of Diplomacy = 32" vs "Make the skill roll and you get the thing this NPC exists to provide"

are we past ""You need to tell me what your PC is saying, not just make the skill check, or you suffer a penality to the skill check."? which is what started us down this path...

Dark Archive

I have a player who tries to diplomacy his way through almost every encounter. But that is how he built his character so i do my best to try to accommodate that, but some times it just isn't going to work.

My favorite thing (or what I find to be most annoying is) when a player rolls the die and without knowing what he hit just says "Threat" and then rolls the die again. Every time I have to stop and ask him what AC that hits, cause there are quite a few times when he is not even hitting the creature, but just assumes that a threat means an auto hit.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.

So a GM politely asking for clarification on what the player is trying to achieve is a bad thing?

Please help me understand why asking for clarification is bad.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this situation has become needlessly overcomplicated.

1). Ask a non-shy, non-other issue player what they hope to accomplish and through what general means or ideas, and roll.

2). Accept a painfully shy player's roll, and if successful, use it to assist them in a manner that is in line with the plot and NPC in question without making a big deal of it.

Do we need more than that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(To get back on thread)

One of my pet peeves is when a player assumes knowledge of my bad guys. For example, I was running a module for some experienced players and newbies, and one of the newbies was leaving a threatened square. I explained that leaving a threatened square provokes attacks of opportunity and asked if he was sure to do so. One of my experienced players immediately shouted, "He can't do that! He already made an attack of opportunity." Of course the bad guy didn't have combat reflexes (low level module), and of course I wasn't going to take the attack of opportunity, but I was using it as a teaching tool. Why not let me have my suspense?

To clarify, it wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much as if he'd said, "He's already made an attack of opportunity this round, so unless he has combat reflexes, you're good." It was just the idea of being told what my bad guys could and couldn't do. The player basically acted like he had just caught me cheating.

And of course, there's nothing worse than a rules lawyer who doesn't actually know the rules. I had to actually stop a game and look up the cleric channel energy feature to show a player that the channel burst was a 30 foot radius instead of 50 feet. (Same player, btw.)


nosig wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

I realize the Golden Mean is itself a fallacy, but I think a lot of people here are using false dichotomies.

There is a middle ground between 'You need to describe exactly what you do in character' and 'I don't need to know, my skill ranks mean my character can figure it out'.

(Just as there is a middle ground between 'Characters have no way to talk about their abilities in character' and 'Scroll cost is a law of physics'.)

I think we've moved past that, though it did come up a lot earlier.

As near as I can tell, we're now at the "You need to give some indication what you're doing, even out of character, beyond the mechanics of Diplomacy = 32" vs "Make the skill roll and you get the thing this NPC exists to provide"

are we past ""You need to tell me what your PC is saying, not just make the skill check, or you suffer a penality to the skill check."? which is what started us down this path...

I figured that was long dead and moved on, but some gms will use the mechanic in that fashion, and that's awful in my opinion. I should be rewarded for my efforts of role playing, and penalized, like the matter of not being as tactful as your character would obviously be.


thejeff wrote:

I've rarely played and almost never ran published scenarios/modules.Thus the idea of there being a listed DC for everything the railroad expects you to do is foreign to me.

Ok, and you don't think that this being a discussion on the PFS section of the boards, discussing ways to annoy PFS dms, and PFS is played exclusively with published scenarios/modules MIGHT influence my approach here?

More subtly, In pfs you swap out DMs. As a DM, if you think that "you must announce which kind of diplomacy check you're trying" your players may have NO idea what the heck you're doing. There isn't always time to learn exactly what the DM expects from you. Using a more persnickety system than what the players may be used to leads to confusion.

Quote:
Generally interactions are more open-ended, with more than one good response possible. And often involve multiple interactions over many sessions. Not just a single Yes/No Diplomacy roll. So the direction the diplomacy takes matters.

There are degrees of success, either written into the scenario or that I can do "ad hoc". If you talk your way through the door with a 20 and the DC is a 20 you get through the door. If you do something ridiculous like get a 40 he might show up to help you or offer to carry your stuff.

Quote:
As for the menu analogy, your approach seems to discard the menu entirely. Good roll gets the "Success" result, regardless of what the PC wanted to do.

So giving the player what I think they were asking for, which is at least what they were asking for and probably more is bad because... ?

Quote:
I can see that working well in something as constrained as a PFS scenario. In a longer term more open game, I'd need something more.

Which works great if you have the long term relationship with your players to figure that out, and long term relationships with the npcs. Neither of those exist in PFS.

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
I am confused about the position that some people are expressing here.

I think I've seen where my confusion with your confusion is. Let me refine my statements from before (and yes, this constitutes changing what I've said).

In a combat situation:

Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.

GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

In diplomacy:

Player A: I use diplomacy. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is a 20. What happens?
GM: Who were you talking to?
Player A: The old man.
GM: What did you want him to do?
Player A: Give us his magic sword.
GM: what did you say to him?
Player A: I tell him it will help ...
.

The parts that are in bold are analogous to each other. In most combats, the only factors the weapon brings to bear are it's damage die and threat range. However, the GM still needs to know what weapon is in use to apply DR or other things that are more situational. Also, when hitting something with a great axe, the intent to kill it is fairly obvious although there are times in combat when characters go for non-lethal damage. In a diplomacy situation, the GM needs to know who the subject is and what the goal of the check will be. He also needs to know what is being said in case there are any subjects that net a bonus or penalty to the user.

I allow players an opportunity to increase their chances at diplomacy success (and increase their and my enjoyment of the scenario) by playing the interaction out. If they do well in my judgment, the get a bonus. If they don't do well, the get no bonus or penalty from me. Or, they can simply tell me what they say out of character for no penalty, no bonus. If however, they want to truncate the conversation above the bolded text, I know who and I know what they want to achieve. Without knowing what they say, they can side-step in game problems (in a past post, I "spoilered" two examples of this at your request). Therefore, I impose a penalty. I use +2, 0 or -2 for these bonuses and penalties.

So, telling the GM what your character is saying is necessary to the skill check just as telling the GM which weapon your character is using in combat is necessary.

If you don't like how I use the GM fiat for social skills, that's cool with me. I'd listen to your reasons at the table. But, unless you can convince me that you do not need to tell me what your character is saying in the social situation, we might have to just agree to disagree.


Rapanuii wrote:
I don't understand where you're getting this interpretation with the people who figure an in between is the appropriate method. A general "I use diplomacy" to me is extremely video game like, and makes me cringe at playing a role playing game.

It makes me cringe as well (if its on its own). If its used in addition to actual talking its sometimes good for clarity.

Quote:
I don't see why the summary method isn't reasonable for you

Its only unreasonable if the DM insists on I use diplomacy to improve attitude, I use diplomacy to aim at a flat DC, or I use diplomacy to gather information- because that's an annoying guessing game.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I've rarely played and almost never ran published scenarios/modules.Thus the idea of there being a listed DC for everything the railroad expects you to do is foreign to me.

Ok, and you don't think that this being a discussion on the PFS section of the boards, discussing ways to annoy PFS dms, and PFS is played exclusively with published scenarios/modules MIGHT influence my approach here?

More subtly, In pfs you swap out DMs. As a DM, if you think that "you must announce which kind of diplomacy check you're trying" your players may have NO idea what the heck you're doing. There isn't always time to learn exactly what the DM expects from you. Using a more persnickety system than what the players may be used to leads to confusion.

That part is my bad. The discussion had ranged far enough and lasted long enough without any mention of PFS, I'd actually forgotten it was in the PFS section.

That said, I still think the focus on "which kind of diplomacy check you're trying" is misleading. Near as I can tell that "more persnickety system" is the actual rules. Though generally I would expect the player to tell me, either in character or out, what he wants to accomplish with Diplomacy and from that it should be apparent which kind of Diplomacy check he's trying.

Even in PFS there have to be some times when it might be advantageous to influence attitude and then make a request, even if it's not strictly necessary, right?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
I don't understand where you're getting this interpretation with the people who figure an in between is the appropriate method. A general "I use diplomacy" to me is extremely video game like, and makes me cringe at playing a role playing game.

It makes me cringe as well (if its on its own). If its used in addition to actual talking its sometimes good for clarity.

Quote:
I don't see why the summary method isn't reasonable for you

Its only unreasonable if the DM insists on I use diplomacy to improve attitude, I use diplomacy to aim at a flat DC, or I use diplomacy to gather information- because that's an annoying guessing game.

Gather info seems to fall into a different category. It takes hours. It's not used on a particular person. I can't really see a case where that would be confused.

I'd expect a successful improve attitude to make the favor check easier, but if that's not the case in most PFS uses, I can see that being annoying.

Liberty's Edge

Rapanuii wrote:


I am going to try my hardest to force role playing in every game I attend from now on, and it's going to be awesome and terrible at the same time.

Yes. It is. Bwuhahahahahaha!! >:^)

Sovereign Court

Finlanderboy wrote:
Ohh another one that upsets me. I had a player reading the module as we were playing, and I was annoyed by that, but figured I could not stop them. Then when they told the table I was playing it wrong and I had to stop the game to tell them they were reading the wrong teir and to put the **** thing away so other people can enjoy the game!

Wow. We have an unspoken rule that noone in the group goes within 100 feet of the adventure book. I just started GMing my first adventure a week ago (Skull and Shackles, having a blast), and if I catch anyone reading the module, I'm not asking them nicely not to. They get a "thanks for coming, but you're out". You really have to try to be kicked from our group -- that would do it in an instant if I'm running the adventure.


Bnw, I find it reasonable to make exceptions for the attitude change, and gather info I see being acceptable as a general roll. Making exceptions to adapt to new players I give leeway, but for some, it's time to learn the game, and give me some vague specifics at least.


Rapanuii wrote:
Bnw, I find it reasonable to make exceptions for the attitude change, and gather info I see being acceptable as a general roll. Making exceptions to adapt to new players I give leeway, but for some, it's time to learn the game, and give me some vague specifics at least.

For which diplomacy check you're doing there's nothing to learn, there's no skill involved, and there's nothing the player can do to get the right answer. Its whatever the mod says it is, and can include any of those three answers or for some scenarios, even their own subsystems.

While I would LOVE the characters to role play everything, you don't really need them to.

The Exchange

andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:
I am confused about the position that some people are expressing here.

I think I've seen where my confusion with your confusion is. Let me refine my statements from before (and yes, this constitutes changing what I've said).

In a combat situation:

Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.

GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

In diplomacy:

Player A: I use diplomacy. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is a 20. What happens?
GM: Who were you talking to?
Player A: The old man.
GM: What did you want him to do?
Player A: Give us his magic sword.
GM: what did you say to him?
Player A: I tell him it will help ...
.

The parts that are in bold are analogous to each other. In most combats, the only factors the weapon brings to bear are it's damage die and threat range. However, the GM still needs to know what weapon is in use to apply DR or other things that are more situational. Also, when hitting something with a great axe, the intent to kill it is fairly obvious although there are times in combat when characters go for non-lethal damage. In a diplomacy situation, the GM needs to know who the subject is and what the goal of the check will be. He also needs to know what is being said in case there are any subjects that net a bonus or penalty to the user.

I allow players an opportunity to increase their chances at diplomacy success (and increase their and my enjoyment of the scenario) by playing the interaction out. If they do well in my judgment, the get a bonus. If they don't do well, the get no bonus or penalty from me. Or, they can simply tell me what they say out of character for no penalty, no bonus. If however, they want to truncate the conversation above the bolded text, I know who and I know what they want to achieve. Without knowing what they say, they can side-step in game problems (in a past post, I "spoilered" two examples of this at your...

Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.

GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

In diplomacy:
Player A: I use diplomacy. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is a 20. What happens?
GM: Who were you talking to?
Player A: The old man.
GM: What did you want him to do?
Player A: Give us his magic sword.
GM: what did you say to him?
Player A: I tell him it will help ...
.

replace the Player A response with this
Player A: I have no idea, if I knew that I would be a better diplomat - heck I might even be as good as my PC is. I actually can see no reason this guy is even taking the time to talk to us...

Now, for another example using a skill... Disable Device this time.

Player A: I use Disable Device. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is a 20. What happens?
GM: What were you using the skill on?
Player A: The old door.
GM: What did you want it to do?
Player A: Open.
GM: What did you do to the door?
Player A: ah... open it? I really have no idea, if I knew that I would be a better locksmith - heck I might even be as good as my PC is.

My point has always been, Diplomacy is just another skill. Is it possible to Role Play it? Yeah, easily. But then it is possible to role play every skill in the game. But this skill - in fact all the CHA skills except Use Magic Device - seems to have some people feeling that the players HAVE to role play them. Why? It's a skill check, just like any other.

We have at least got past the point where we started - with the judge who "auto failed" persons who just want to roll the skill check... realizing that this entire subject started with the following:

"I have just accepted the fact in society I have to deal with such things. Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit."


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
Bnw, I find it reasonable to make exceptions for the attitude change, and gather info I see being acceptable as a general roll. Making exceptions to adapt to new players I give leeway, but for some, it's time to learn the game, and give me some vague specifics at least.
For which diplomacy check you're doing there's nothing to learn, there's no skill involved, and there's nothing the player can do to get the right answer. Its whatever the mod says it is, and can include any of those three answers or for some scenarios, even their own subsystems.

Not every NPC has a yellow question mark above their head. What do you do when the module doesn't have diplomacy options for an NPC but the player still wants to use diplomacy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


Not every NPC has a yellow question mark above their head. What do you do when the module doesn't have diplomacy options for an NPC but the player still wants to use diplomacy?

Wing it.

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
are we past ""You need to tell me what your PC is saying, not just make the skill check, or you suffer a penality to the skill check."? which is what started us down this path...

No.

Rapanuii wrote:

Simply say what you want to accomplish, and roll. Your check will determine if you got kicked in the family jewels, or convinced balor to you're family bbq.

Pick the mechanic, summarize how you want to use it, then your character does the rest.

Still no.

spoiler:
The Wardstone Patrol: In the discussion of influencing Sir Ilivan, "If the PCs instead insult, denigrate, or belittle Sir Ilivan—including using Intimidate on him—they might win his brief compliance but otherwise earn no Empathy Point for the encounter"

The Hellknight's Feast: When trying to influence Lady Dyrianna, "Lady Dyrianna is partial to the plight of elves, and elves receive a +2 bonus on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with her. She is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with Lady Dyrianna."

What would you do in these cases then? Convince me that I don't need to know the content of the social conversations in these instances.

The Exchange

BigDTBone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
Bnw, I find it reasonable to make exceptions for the attitude change, and gather info I see being acceptable as a general roll. Making exceptions to adapt to new players I give leeway, but for some, it's time to learn the game, and give me some vague specifics at least.
For which diplomacy check you're doing there's nothing to learn, there's no skill involved, and there's nothing the player can do to get the right answer. Its whatever the mod says it is, and can include any of those three answers or for some scenarios, even their own subsystems.
Not every NPC has a yellow question mark above their head. What do you do when the module doesn't have diplomacy options for an NPC but the player still wants to use diplomacy?

LOL! as I often run diplomats I can say that oft times the judge just hits my PC.


nosig wrote:

We have at least got past the point where we started - with the judge who "auto failed" persons who just want to roll the skill check... realizing that this entire subject started with the following:

"I have just accepted the fact in society I have to deal with such things. Half the time the face is a moron and sats things like "I want to convine him to tell us where the map is." They don't understand doing things in character. In my home games I deal with this by failure, but ultimately I just do a better job recruiting in the first place. I no longer expect rp in society at all, and if I get it its a nice side benefit."

We may have gotten past that point, but we seem to have reached the point where "I want to convince him to tell us where the map is." is far too much to ask.

I think we might have overshot.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Player: I use diplomacy
DM: Ok, what do you want to achieve?

What is the problem with this?

The problem, again, is that the three different mechanics are so close together and so interchangeably used that if you're asking which version of the mechanics they're trying to use it's an arbitrary guessing game with the player.

You are saying that for you "improve attitude" and "ask a favour " are similar and interchangeable. And that both those are interchangeable with Gather informations?


BNW, I see now that you're focused on the published information you get for succeeding in a Diplomacy, and I think that can be an exception, but I feel most of us are discussing is the general use of it. Yes, this is the PFS section, but not every NPC in the game will have diplomacy guidelines either for exactly what you need to beat to get a specific result, or at least the result you want.

Simply giving a short summary of what you intend to do seems extremely reasonable, and should usually be the minimal effort put into a diplomacy check. Exceptions for other circumstances I feel is acceptable, but just rolling some skills without ANYTHING at all just seems unacceptable.

"I want to change their attitude with me, so my character will use diplomacy to manipulate the old man into doing so" *rolls dice to beat appropriate DC, and take into consideration time has past, and how many levels of attitude has been improved*

"I ask the old man to let me look at his artifact, so I can match the insignia" *Rolls Dice, and calculates what the appropriate DC is by what the request reflects against their attitude toward the player*

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Where in the world did you get that idea?

nosig wrote:

replace the Player A response with this

Player A: I have no idea, if I knew that I would be a better diplomat - heck I might even be as good as my PC is. I actually can see no reason this guy is even taking the time to talk to us...

No. You don't have be as good as your PC is. I'm not asking for the role-played conversation. Just general points. Since I made this example out of thin air, I can't link to a real scenario. But in every scenario that I've run, I can't recall where there would not be knowledge checks or gather information (diplomacy) checks that would yield what to say and what not to say.

nosig wrote:
My point has always been, Diplomacy is just another skill. Is it possible to Role Play it? Yeah, easily. But then it is possible to role play every skill in the game. But this skill - in fact all the CHA skills except Use Magic Device - seems to have some people feeling that the players HAVE to role play them. Why? It's a skill check, just like any other.

We agree, it is a skill check like any other. In any check, certain information must be conveyed to the GM. What weapon you use in a combat scenario is needed by the GM, yes or no? The target, yes or no? The intent, (lethal or non-lethal damage) yes or no? With picking a lock, the information is usually understood by both the GM and player but it is still understood (the lock on the chest, MW, normal or improvised tools, opening the lock being the obvious goal). With diplomacy, the GM needs to know the subject (person being influenced), yes or no? The goal, yes or no? The words used or topics brought up, yes or no?

I know you don't approve my use of GM fiat for social skills. That's cool. I use it in other things too, just not the ridiculous ways you like to imply. If a player took time to grease door hinges to make them less squeaky, I would give a +2 to stealth in trying to open the door quietly. Combat rules are fairly well developed, not much need for the GM fiat there.

Liberty's Edge

nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To the people saying that you don't need any context for Diplomacy, do you think the same for Bluff? In that case, the content of what you're saying is explicitly relevant to the difficulty of the check. Also, it's related to what the result will be.

"I convince her that..." isn't the same as "I use my wiles to charm her so that she'll..." isn't the same as "I point out that our goals are the same for reason X, so she should..." They are all applications of diplomacy, but I'd allow the player a bonus if their approach was particularly well-suited to the NPC and a corresponding penalty if it's a particularly bad idea. The manner in which they deliver that information to me is largely irrelevant (although I admit I can be convinced, so a more glib player might have an advantage there :-( ), but the more context I have about what the character is doing, the better I can adjudicate it.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
nosig wrote:
are we past ""You need to tell me what your PC is saying, not just make the skill check, or you suffer a penality to the skill check."? which is what started us down this path...

No.

Rapanuii wrote:

Simply say what you want to accomplish, and roll. Your check will determine if you got kicked in the family jewels, or convinced balor to you're family bbq.

Pick the mechanic, summarize how you want to use it, then your character does the rest.

Still no.

** spoiler omitted **

What would you do in these cases then? Convince me that I don't need to know the content of the social conversations in these instances.

spoilers for Wardstone Patrol and Hellknight's Feast:

First - realize that both of these are special circumstances in one encounter and should not be taken to indicate game wide rules. Kind of like when the scenario says: "If the PC speaks Halit, he gains a +5 on all CHA checks when interacting with the natives." You don't apply this bonus (or any bonus) outside this scenario, just because the PC can speak the NPCs native language.

now for your examples:
The Wardstone Patrol: In the discussion of influencing Sir Ilivan, "If the PCs instead insult, denigrate, or belittle Sir Ilivan—including using Intimidate on him—they might win his brief compliance but otherwise earn no Empathy Point for the encounter" If the PCs use Intimidate on him they earn no Empathy Point.... what's hard to understand here? Are we saying that if the PCs "insult, denigrate, or belittle" him but DON'T use Intimidate they CAN earn an Empathy Point? No, I don't think so. Or are you saying they can use Intimidate on him, as long as they don't insult, denigrate, or belittle him and thus still earn the Empathy Points? From the way it is written, I would think the author beleaved that in order to use Intimidate the PCs would have to insult, denigrate, or belittle him... but left an "out" for the PCs to still get the Empathy Point. So - If the PCs use Intimidate, I could see asking for the PCs to expand on this - in order to get the point back. If they said something like "We say NEE unto him! and Threaten him with the Soft Cushion!"... but no, I'd not give them the Empathy Point just for avoided insults, denigrating, or belittling him.

The Hellknight's Feast: When trying to influence Lady Dyrianna, "Lady Dyrianna is partial to the plight of elves, and elves receive a +2 bonus on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with her. She is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with Lady Dyrianna."
The PCs get a bonus for being Elves (or if she thinks they are elves - I have a PC who disguises himself as a gnome at all time... part of his RP shtick...).
If the PCs broach the subject of her spy network they suffer a -4 penalty on checks to gain Influence Points with her... They could easily do this while trying to gain a bonus from mentioning working with her before. The PCs risk this when they are "fishing" for possible bonuses, right? Or the player could just decide not to bother (for whatever reason the player may have... maybe tired, or shy, or he just got a call from his spouse who is upset and whats him home SOON), and to treat this as a Roll Play encounter rather than a Role Play encounter. But if the Player says "I'm not going fishing for bonuses - I'll just stick with my roll" then in the game setting perhaps his PC knows to avoid this subject (on a high check result) or brings it up (on a low check result). Kind of like not mentioning the untimely death of her mother... or offering sympathy... whichever gives a result more in tune with thier skill check. But forcing the players to list what subjects they talk to her about a judge would be pushing the players into something they may not be comfortable with, forceing them to "play the way I want you to".

This does raise a flag with me though, I could see the following happening at a game... along comes the PC (new/out of touch/whatever) who says "who the heck is this Lady Dyre..whatever? how do you say her name again? and what's she do?" and the judge says "she's the Talden Faction leader, head of the Talden spy network"... and the PC walks right into the "gotcha!", lead there by the judge...

Hope this helps!
.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
If a player took time to grease door hinges to make them less squeaky, I would give a +2 to stealth in trying to open the door quietly.

I'll have to remember this when I am at your table Andy. I agree with this system because it rewards unpredictable and innovative tactics off the battlefield without unbalancing it. Sometimes,we all need to remember we are playing a game and rolling high on the dice is not the only way to have fun.

The Exchange

Diego Rossi wrote:
nosig wrote:

[Takeing your examples I have a couple questions....

In a combat situation:
Player A: I attack. I rolled a 12 plus 8 is twenty. Did I hit?
GM: Who did you Attack?
Player A: The zombie.
GM: With what weapon?
Player A: My great axe.
GM: Yes, you hit. Roll your damage.

purely curiosity, but are you indicating that you would give a penality to hit if he used a different weapon?

Zombies have DR 5/Slashing, so using a mace would get a different result, even if you rolled the same to hit and the same damage.

but it would not adjust the To Hit roll - the roll to be matched against the DC (in this case the AC).

Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

Contributor

I have this one at my table (not a PFS table) from one of the players a lot:

Me: Roll (whatever check I want)
Player 1: 15
Player 2: 12
Player 3: 5
Player 4: 13 plus 8

It's basic addition. I know what the total is but seriously, just tell me the total.

Also, Forgotten Knight, how do you deal with the Diplomacy thing? The same player in my group has a tremendous diplomacy and he expects it to be an auto win for everything he does. I am usually pretty good about it but if it ever doesn't work how he wants he gets all angry. It's become a very frustrating point for me.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Adjusting the skill check depending on what the Player says is like adjusting the attack roll depending on how the player discribed his attack. "I used an overhand chop! Vigorusly striking the animated creature a mighty blow! does that give me a +2 or a -2 to hit?"

You are deliberately misquoting and misapplying details. Your mocking is not appreciated. Andy has clearly stated several times that the method he is describing is specifically not for combat, in which there are ample rules. Here is something for you to review

Paizo wrote:
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk.

451 to 500 of 551 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / "I go into stealth." and Other Ways to Annoy Your GM All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.