Anatomy of Failed Design: 3e Diplomacy.

[Kaelik]

What I've always said with it is that it's not even charm person. If you're raiding the dragon's nest and diplomacy his ass into being friendly, he's going to take all your gear and let you live if you promise an exorbitant tribute, and maybe he needs a guard or two. Maybe he even fancies trying for half-dragons with his new buddy.

You are stupid and wrong. Read Charm Person. First of all, it's fucking exactly like Charm Person, except when it's better.

Charm Person makes people friendly, that's the actual rules, changes attitude to friendly. Diplomacy could change them to Friendly too, or it could make them Helpful. Helpful specifically says what type of actions a helpful creature does, it aids, protects, and heals. It does not take all your gear and demand tribute, because that's the exact opposite of aiding and protecting.

[Username17]

"Making friends with people" is something you can leave to MTP, because it doesn't make sense for that to be a skill. Everyone makes friends with people that are like them, the end. People do not have a graduated curve of being able to make friends.

Uh... no. Some people have more friends and other people have less friends. Some people are described as "likable" and others are not. Furthermore, going out and making friends with people is something you can get better at.

The way 3e skills work has lots of problems. But there is nothing wrong with the idea of there being a skill that lets you make friends with people. That's a real skill that real people really have.

Basically, you walked into this discussion with a bullshit presupposition that only full MTP would be an acceptable method of deciding whether the ogres would be willing to hang out and drink ale instead of fighting if you asked them before coming to blows. And that's not true. You totally could roll dice for that, and it would make a lot of sense for characters to get modifiers to those die rolls based on their own abilities. So this thread is a waste of space. Because it's not about how the 3e Diplomacy system failed, it's about how you don't think there should be a system for determining NPC attitudes at all. Which is a viewpoint, but in no way relevant to a discussion supposedly about the failures of design surrounding a skill whose primary purpose is determining NPC attitudes.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Basically, you walked into this discussion with a bullshit presupposition that only full MTP would be an acceptable method of deciding whether the ogres would be willing to hang out and drink ale instead of fighting if you asked them before coming to blows.

No, I first of all said that you could have a skill for that, and it would be fine, you could even incorporate it into diplomacy as one of the aspects that needs to be covered, but that any such system needs to not be an arbitrary mind control device that dictates what NPCs will and won't do.

If you want to be friends with the Ogres, that's fine, but being friends is not mind control, whatever system you use to determine if you are friends can't also dictate what those friends do with no consideration for the differences between dragons and ogres.

[hogarth]

My two cents: I'd be happy if Diplomacy/Intimidate worked like in the Elder Scrolls series or the Mass Effect series. Namely, if you roll well enough, you get some extra conversation options, but it's not possible to get every possible reaction from a given NPC.

Fortunately, that's how 99% of written modules seem to work. E.g. "Joe the peasant is unfriendly, but if you can make him friendly (DC 25), he gives you a turnip and tells you where the ruined moathouse is."

[mean_liar]

Here's an attempt at fixing Diplomacy.

1. Instead of Diplomacy v Diplomacy, it should be Diplomacy v (higher of Diplomacy or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against mind-affecting magic). Immunity to mind-affecting magic is interpreted as providing a +5 bonus to this roll. Truly mindless entities are immune to Diplomacy.

2. Aid Another does not work with Diplomacy.

3. The number of Attitude categories that can be shifted is limited to the relative highest CR of the parties (or who the parties represent, in the case of delegated responsibility).
3.1 If the initiator is within 2 CR of the other party, the maximum Attitude shift is one category.
3.2 If the initiator is at least 1 CR greater than the other party, the maximum Attitude shift is two categories.
3.3 For every CR the initiator is greater than the other party beyond 1, the maximum Attitude shift increases one category.
3.4 If the other party is a delegation (and therefore using a CR otherwise above their own immediate maximum), the maximum Attitude category shift is increased by one.
3.5 If either party holds a significant and obvious power advantage over the other (regardless of relative power of their patrons), the maximum Attitude category shift is increased by one.

4. Diplomacy can only be re-used after a dramatic change of context. The easiest measure of this is that relative CR changes, or the situation delineated in 3.5 comes to pass, but this also includes previously-unknown outside events significantly influencing the situation.


It's rough but usable. You can add a feat that eliminates the maximum Attitude shift if you wanted to. An associated change would be to treat Diplomacy as Glibness and just have it give a massive +X to Diplomacy.

[Username17]

No, I first of all said that you could have a skill for that, and it would be fine, you could even incorporate it into diplomacy as one of the aspects that needs to be covered, but that any such system needs to not be an arbitrary mind control device that dictates what NPCs will and won't do.

No you didn't. Stop lying. You said:

What we don't need is another fucking way to make friends and influence people.

And yes, there are perfectly valid reasons to want to have a subsystem for making friends and influencing people. Your core complaint about Diplomavy genuinely is that you're butthurt about there being a skill that changes the attitudes of NPCs and whose roll determines whether the giants are friendly or hostile. And that complaint has no basis being in a discussion about failed design pertaining to a skill that modifies the NPC Attitude roll.

It would be like coming out and saying "I don't think we should have XXX" in a discussion of "Anatomy of Failed Design: XXX", where XXX is absolutely anything at all. This thread is fucking stupid, and you are fucking stupid for having made it. Because if you categorically reject the thing that is being designed as something that should exist, you can't very well come up with constructive ideas on how it should have been made. In fact, I'm not even going to fucking bother responding to this thread anymore, because it is built on a literally unsalvageable foundation of failure. I'll go make another one where people can talk about the actual problems and potential solutions instead of getting into a pointless dick waving contest with someone who doesn't think the design element is worth working on.

Congratulations: you thread crapped your own thread in the first post. Good job.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Your core complaint about Diplomavy genuinely is that you're butthurt about there being a skill that changes the attitudes of NPCs and whose roll determines whether the giants are friendly or hostile.

No, my core complaint is that diplomacy is not "making friends." Diplomacy is dealing with people who are not your fucking friends.

And that complaint has no basis being in a discussion about failed design pertaining to a skill that modifies the NPC Attitude roll.

Which would matter if Diplomacy were actually about making people like you. But since that's not what diplomacy actually is, that's a different subject.

[TarkisFlux]

Holy fuck, an actual answer. "It's not a skill based system, so it shouldn't have skill based combat abilities." That's the first damn useful thing you've said in response to my question. And it's reasonable even, especially given the brokeness that is 3.x skills.

Seriously though, quit reading objections to your larger point into questions about why you're suggesting things in a certain way. I don't fucking care if mind control doesn't exist as a skill in this setup, and I wasn't suggesting it be kept there. It just wasn't clear to me why you thought it had to be excised from skills entirely. Play less SC2 and write more coherent posts and we won't need to have these little exchanges.

[ubernoob]

Uh... no. Some people have more friends and other people have less friends. Some people are described as "likable" and others are not. Furthermore, going out and making friends with people is something you can get better at.

The way 3e skills work has lots of problems. But there is nothing wrong with the idea of there being a skill that lets you make friends with people. That's a real skill that real people really have.

Basically, you walked into this discussion with a bullshit presupposition that only full MTP would be an acceptable method of deciding whether the ogres would be willing to hang out and drink ale instead of fighting if you asked them before coming to blows. And that's not true. You totally could roll dice for that, and it would make a lot of sense for characters to get modifiers to those die rolls based on their own abilities. So this thread is a waste of space. Because it's not about how the 3e Diplomacy system failed, it's about how you don't think there should be a system for determining NPC attitudes at all. Which is a viewpoint, but in no way relevant to a discussion supposedly about the failures of design surrounding a skill whose primary purpose is determining NPC attitudes.

-Username17

Ok, let's be serious for a moment. There are people in the world that are really good at getting what they want out of people in the world because they are exactly that good at knowing how to use people. There are many words to describe these people (charismatic, sociopaths, pickup artists, hot girls), but NONE of them have the abilities a second level character has with 3E diplomacy. None of them. Why? Because some people are not open to being charmed over by you. They might not like your clothes, be having a bad day, or what fucking ever. But the point is, a second level character is better at making people follow him than Hitler or Churchill.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Kaelik is right. 3E diplomacy is basically mind control and it needs to be redone. You are making an incredibly stupid argument that just because some people are better with people than others, that means that all people are open to your wiles. And we're just talking about human vs human manipulation here. Dragons...

Oh wait, they follow the same rules.

Getting along with people should be a skill. Making everyone you ever meet follow you around and cast cure light wounds should not. End of discussion.

[Kaelik]

Holy fuck, an actual answer. "It's not a skill based system, so it shouldn't have skill based combat abilities." That's the first damn useful thing you've said in response to my question. And it's reasonable even, especially given the brokeness that is 3.x skills.

Seriously though, quit reading objections to your larger point into questions about why you're suggesting things in a certain way. I don't fucking care if mind control doesn't exist as a skill in this setup, and I wasn't suggesting it be kept there. It just wasn't clear to me why you thought it had to be excised from skills entirely. Play less SC2 and write more coherent posts and we won't need to have these little exchanges.

You'd have a stronger argument that I'm the one at fault here if I hadn't already answered your question before it was even asked, I was merely repeating what I had already said in that post.

[tussock]

Charm Person makes people friendly, that's the actual rules, changes attitude to friendly.

Boy have I ever had that argument before. RTFM. Friendly folk in terms of the attitude rules are not like Charmed people at all. No opposed Cha checks to give orders, and even charmed critters resist things they don't naturally like doing.

The dragon does not like you in his vault, does not like you killing his kobolds, does not like you leaving with his new shining treasures you bought for him, so even if he's charmed he gets to resist that shit.

But see, Charmed making you Friendly does not mean Friendly makes you Charmed. Basic logic fail there.

[Kaelik]

The dragon does not like you in his vault, does not like you killing his kobolds, does not like you leaving with his new shining treasures you bought for him, so even if he's charmed he gets to resist that shit.

What the fuck is your point?

Yes, if you kill his Kobolds when he's charmed, then he's no longer charmed, and he kills you. Just like if he's friendly, and you kill his kobolds, he's now not friendly, and he kills you. If you try to steal his treasure when he's charmed, he's no longer charmed, and he kills you. If you try to steal his treasure when he's friendly, he's not friendly anymore, and he murders you.

There are a few very minor differences between Charm and Diplomacy, but Friendly is just as good as Charm in 90% of situations, and Helpful is always better.

[Kaelik]

But, but, but, BUT! Fighters CAN'T have NICE THINGS! Waaaah!

PL, stop being a lying asshole. If you want your fucking Fighter to have Mindcontrol, take a goddam skill feat that allows him to mind control people. Stop fucking bitching about how you have to spend one whole feat in order to completely break the game with no save mind control.

[Username17]

There are a few very minor differences between Charm and Diplomacy, but Friendly is just as good as Charm in 90% of situations, and Helpful is always better.

I said I wasn't going to even respond to this misbegotten thread anymore, but this cannot stand. No. Just shut the fuck up for a moment, OK?

Charm has two effects. Just two. The first is that it sets your target to Friendly on the NPC attitude chart. That part is worse than using Diplomancy to make them Helpful and no better than making them Friendly in any other way. The second effect is that the target is forced to consider your words and deeds in the most favorable possible light and can be convinced to do things that are against their nature with a Charisma check. That part has no direct equivalent on the chart.

Charm has two effects, one of which is a literal function call to the Dplomacy rules, and the other is an arbitrary and unique effect listed in the spell description. That second one is not part of diplomacy, which means among other things that diplomacy cannot make creatures behave "as if charmed". The function calls go the other way.

-Username17

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Frankly, the ability to make another perceive your actions or words in the most favorable way cleaves more closely to being diplomatic than being likable does.

[tussock]

Perhaps I should try my attitude explainer here.

Say you shoot a democratic senator in the head, drop your guns, and try to survive the arrest. Security comes for you, but the first one on the scene totally knows you socially.

1: He hates you: You're dead. Surrender all you want, it's five in the face either way.
2: He dislikes you: One centre of mass. Knee a little too long on the neck. Just for safety, and it might take a while to find you an ambulance. Perhaps they'll interrogate you first.
3: Neutral: You're arrested, with the knees and taser. There's procedure to be followed, and it will be.
4: Friends: Shit dude, WTF? Procedure becomes less painful, you get a lawyer surprisingly early, the cuffs don't cut you (+1 to escape).
5: *Good* friends: Keeps the other cops from doing anything bad, watches for your safety, makes sure you get a good lawyer, tries to find out how you went bad, speaks in your favour at the trial, but you still get arrested because you shot a fucking senator!

Charm adds an effect where you can tell them to let you go, and they will.

Bad Cop dislikes everyone. Good Cop is friends with everyone. Still cops.
Orc patrolman hates elves, dislikes anyone else. Still a patrolman.

So, being friendly helps, but they're still intelligent beings with their own motivations and desires. That only goes away with Dominate. Well, that and providing them with superior motivations.