Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[hogarth]

But you don't explain why the orcs' reaction is neutral/cautious/hostile. What did the PCs do in those cases to cause a different reaction?

If the answer is "nothing", then you're just adding random noise to the orcs' reaction (e.g. the orcs are falling in love at first sight for no apparent reason).

If the answer is "something", then what is the "something" that the PCs did wrong (or right) and why isn't it covered by another skill (like Knowledge [orcs])?

How is that different than a sword swing that failed to connect? Do you have to explain why you fucked up your second swing when it's made with the same modifiers against the same AC as the first attack that succeeded.

The dice are an abstraction. They take things into account to keep this from being a 100% MC fiat game. In the case of an attack roll, you figure you overswung, or you slipped in some mud, or the other guy parried. In the case of diplomacy, maybe you made some stupid faux pas without meaning to.

I'm trying to think of a faux pas that (a) wouldn't be covered by an existing check like Spot ("your white flag has a big jizz stain on it") or Knowledge [orcs] ("a white flag means 'your momma sucks owlbear dicks for wooden nickels' in Orcish") or Diplomacy, or (b) doesn't involve the GM controlling your character, like saying "your PC forgot to bathe this morning".

[Agrinja]

Why so broad? If you're going to come up with a stupid faux pas that you didn't mean to, it might not be something under Knowledge[Orcs] as much as it might be something personal to that very orc. Maybe he's just pissed off because your voice sounds like someone who once knifed him in the crotch. Or this is probably an idiotic thought but would it be so wrong if a reasonable GM and a reasonable player came to an agreement on just what went wrong? Dice are dice, shit happens with them, come up with something that works for the story and move on, or hell, if you absolutely want no GM fiat involved, just make it so the player gets to name their faux pas. "Shit, I think he saw me fondling myself while looking at his daughter." And hey, work that into the interaction between the NPC and the PC.

[MGuy]

Grovelling and supplicating are actual actions though and would thus should have a roll. There sure as hell shouldn't be one over whether or not the orcs are hostile. That's the been the only thing I've been questioning since the beginning because the way Frank is putting it there should be a roll to determine both which I don't think there should be one to determine that the orcs already don't like you. Whether or not there should be a roll on what they do about hasn't been a part of any argument I've made.

If I'm reading you and Frank correctly, I don't think you're too far off from what he's saying. I'm getting the impression it goes like this:

1) MC sets a starting disposition for the orcs (aggressive).

2) MC takes into account anything the PCs have passively or preemptively done (Do they have weapons drawn? Are they on neutral ground? Does the group contain any dwarves?).

3) Based on the starting disposition (MC-fiat) and the modifiers (passively determined by circumstance and by any actions the PCs took before hand), MC makes an initial attitude roll. So, the aggressive orcs could become hostile to armed dwarves on sight, or they could become cautious to humans out in the middle of a neutral area that don't have weapons drawn, or whatever.

4) The encounter has started, and people can start to make decisions as to whether to use Diplomacy, fight, run, or whatever.


So, from what I can tell, you setting the initial attitude is akin to Frank setting the initial disposition: 100% MC fiat. It's just that after that, Frank is taking actions into account that happen before the encounter. The initial attitude roll is to determine how successful those actions are.

So, if your goal is to put aggressive orcs at ease, you might walk around with your weapons sheathed, have your half orc barbarian "leading" the group up front, and avoid disputed territories to boost your modifiers. Once that part is done, assuming MC doesn't roll "the orcs want to kill you, no questions asked", then the group can always attempt to engage in Diplomacy once the encounter starts (a second roll).

You are right. We aren't too far from each other. I wish he would've actually read my posts so he could've just understood that and actually gave me his POV on it but whatever.

I'm not even arguing against having a reaction roll to determine what action shall be taken. Though personally I would leave it up to MC fiat considering the players have the same luxury with their characters. The only fashion I would wish to bind the MC at all to is a given range of reactions based on the NPC's current disposition.I'd rather it not be random because I don't see MC fiat as 100% bad. AS far as I'm concerned MC fiat is only bad if the MC is bad and if the MC is that bad then they are probably going to use their own judgment anyway.

[fectin]

I totally agree with you that we don't need randomness for the sake of randomness. Rolling a d20 to see if you can drink your beer is dumb. Rolling to see the initial disposition of monsters is dumb (except maybe in the case of wandering monsters). However, rolling to determine the success of a PC action is what makes this a game. I'm not talking about rolling disposition. I'm talking about rolling for the reaction based on some actions taken by the PCs.

Whether or not wandering monsters are dumb is a separate issue (generally: yes, specifically: maybe), but I really don't care about them. They, their stats, and their behaviors are entirely random anyway though, so I really don't care.

Otherwise though, I'm not sure why rolling for reaction isn't injecting randomness for the sake of randomness. I kind of get that it could be a useful defense against fiat abuse (aka, "Fuck your white flag! The orcs hate you because they're orcs!"), but it's basically a losing fight as soon as you start playing with assholes.

Don't get me wrong, I have at least one friend I would love to game with again who did the "wisdom check to not say something stupid" thing (and plenty of others I'd be less eager about), but that particular quirk always irritated and confused me. I really don't see how it's different when the MC does it. It's really not player agency vs. MC agency, like an attack roll is, it's MC agency vs. chaos.

[jadagul]

It's different when the MC does it because his characters don't have backstories. The PCs all have reasonably detailed backstories and motivations, so you can extrapolate how they'd react to things. With a random shopkeeper or a bunch of orcs, you don't have that. So you have a few options.

1) All shopkeepers react in exactly the same way. If you present two different shopkeepers in two different cities (with the same disposition) with the same stimuli, you get the same result.

2) The MC just makes something up. Maybe this band of orcs likes you, for no apparent reason. Maybe this other one doesn't, also for no apparent reason.

3) The MC rolls to figure out what happens within the reasonable scope for variation.

Now, (1) is obviously dumb if you want to have any versimilitude whatsoever. So the question is whether variation should be determined entirely by MC whim or at least partially by some randomizer. And, you know what? If I'm the MC I probably want a randomizer most of the time. Because otherwise I'm constantly having to make up reactions that both are fair and look like they're fair. I'll have players constantly wondering if I'm just deciding to screw them, or play nice with them, or whatever.

And even if my players are nice and not second-guessing me, I keep having to make these damn arbitrary decisions that don't have any basis. And that's annoying and stressful. So I'd want some system that lets me not have to do that on my own. Now, if for some reason I have a character with a backstory as deep as the PCs, maybe I can actually predict how he'd respond to something and just roleplay him. But most of my mooks/civilians/whatever aren't like that, and if I want them to feel at all organic they need some randomness to them.

[Username17]

Otherwise though, I'm not sure why rolling for reaction isn't injecting randomness for the sake of randomness. I kind of get that it could be a useful defense against fiat abuse (aka, "Fuck your white flag! The orcs hate you because they're orcs!"), but it's basically a losing fight as soon as you start playing with assholes.

If you don't roll the dice, your diplomatic stance has no chance of working.

Similarly, the MC could simply declare that the ambushing orcs attack without you getting to act in the first round without allowing you to roll for perception. How fair is that? Or the MC could declare that you get captured at the start of the adventure and let you roll dice to escape. How fair is that?

For a talking character's abilities to be meaningful, they have to have a chance of working. For something to have a chance of working, there needs to be a die roll. Yes, after the fact you can't tell the difference between an event that was decided, an event that was fated, or an event that was randomly generated. But the process is fucking important. Only one of those involves the player's abilities being important or meaningful.

The first part of diplomancy is getting the other creatures to talk. If you don't have a chance to pull that off, you have no agency.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

I'm trying to think of a faux pas that (a) wouldn't be covered by an existing check like Spot ("your white flag has a big jizz stain on it") or Knowledge [orcs] ("a white flag means 'your momma sucks owlbear dicks for wooden nickels' in Orcish") or Diplomacy, or (b) doesn't involve the GM controlling your character, like saying "your PC forgot to bathe this morning".

Knowldege[Orc] gives you a +2 synergy bonus on Diplomacy checks against orcs?

[MGuy]

@jad: I can't ever imagine this being a problem for myself. Your reasoning is sound but when faced with a random civilian/mook's attitude I could really give a rat's ass about whether they leave any impression on the PCs at tall. I mean I don't even rp a run to "Ye Olde Shoppe" because it is not the part of the game anyone cares about unless something of at least moderate importance is going down there. Even conversations between player's and people/shit that doesn't matter is abstracted when I do it: "He responds positively mentioning an old farm in the hills".

But let's for the sake of argument say I did care. The same amount of work it takes for me to decide on the character's reaction is the same I would put in for its disposition, look, speech patterns, accent (if I'm doing one) and other details minor about the character. If I'm willing to put any actual thought behind these things at all then I can trust that I'll probably feel like going through the (apparent because I've never had a headache over it) headache of deciding how they are going to react to the player's as well.

[hogarth]

If you don't roll the dice, your diplomatic stance has no chance of working.

That makes exactly as much sense as saying: "If a wizard summons a monster to set off a trap and you don't roll the dice, setting off the trap has no chance of working."

[RobbyPants]

It depends on the trap. If it's the sort of trap that triggers once 50+ pounds stands on a plate, then it's a pretty cut and dry decision: does the monster weight at least 50 pounds, and did it cross that plate? The difference here is that a typical trap is a mechanism that works in predictable ways. People and their decision-making processes aren't so straight forward.

[hogarth]

People and their decision-making processes aren't so straight forward.

Right, so you're adding more randomness on the NPCs' side. Fine, if that's what you want. But Frank was complaining that the PCs' actions are moot unless there's randomness involved. How does "the NPC is having a bad day" increase the PCs' ability to change the world?

[RobbyPants]

That wasn't at all what I was saying.

The only reason I want a roll of any sort is to determine the effectiveness of what the PCs are doing. If they are preemptively trying to affect the initial reaction, then we need to see if they succeed. If they aren't trying to preemptively do anything, then I see no reason to have a roll to move the monster off of its initial disposition.

The only exception I see to that would be possibly for random passive modifiers, like if there are dwarves in the group or something.

[shadzar]

2) The MC just makes something up. Maybe this band of orcs likes you, for no apparent reason. Maybe this other one doesn't, also for no apparent reason.

if a band of orcs just likes me for some reason from the start, i am going to think something is up and be suspicious.

two merchants act the same because they are playing kiss-ass to get your money or items for cheap. that doesnt mean they like you.

[MGuy]

That wasn't at all what I was saying.

The only reason I want a roll of any sort is to determine the effectiveness of what the PCs are doing. If they are preemptively trying to affect the initial reaction, then we need to see if they succeed. If they aren't trying to preemptively do anything, then I see no reason to have a roll to move the monster off of its initial disposition.

The only exception I see to that would be possibly for random passive modifiers, like if there are dwarves in the group or something.

Ok in a situation with going to meet dwarf hating, demon worshiping orcs. How is it that "we have a dwarf" doesn't deserve a random modifier yet "We're wearing demon worshiping regalia" does? If I were forced to call a roll on the "wear the right garbs" player actions I'd call for two. A Knowledge or Gather Info Check to know that the orcs don't like dwarves and are demon worshipers and a Disguise check to truss the dwarf up as just a short human or something else and to properly disguise the rest of the group as likely demon worshipers. At least then I'm making the group use investigative skills which sorely need more use in the game anyway. And I still would only let a successful disguise check provide a meager +2 bonus or just erase "Kill on sight" from the list of potential hostile actions the orcs take sense they trussed up (hopefully successfully) the dwarf.

[RobbyPants]

Well, yeah. If you successfully disguised your dwarf, then you'd nullify the party-has-dwarves penalty. Seems pretty cut and dry.

[MGuy]

I know. But my question is how is that more cut and dry then "Wear the proper clothes/regalia"? Why does the dwarf thing not deserve a diplomacy check and the other does?

[RobbyPants]

If you'd rather, I can go back to my stance of roll every time, even if you're not actively trying to improve your first impression. I figured that could save time.

I'll be honest that I don't want to be rolling for initial reactions for every NPC I meet. It speeds up the game a lot to just go with MC's initial disposition ruling so long as you're fine with that. The reason I want a roll is if the PCs decide they aren't fine with the initial disposition. They want to try and influence the first impression. That's an action with some chance of success.

So, if it doesn't matter if a dwarf is in your party: don't roll for that. If it does: do.

[MGuy]

I agree with you here. I'd rather have the DM rule over things like this and I too would want player's involvement in being able to improve initial disposition. As I said before, to improve the orc's stance (because the players apparently want to) they could do research (knowledge/gather Info/do some perception/stealth reconnaissance) and adjust their attire or even the fashion in which they approach(disguise/bluff/diplomacy). Because if the players care then they should actively DO something to show it.

Edit: And I stress the point they should have to DO something because by requiring them to do so you encourage the use of these underused/undervalued skills that make the world more believable. It is much more rewarding for a player to have to do that kind of research instead of just being handed the chance to improve something's attitude the second they meet it because "they wanna". Its much more believable that if you run into someone/thing you weren't expecting that you actually DON'T have a chance to change its attitude because of style and flair because you actually weren't prepared to do so. That doesn't prevent someone from attempting to use diplomacy after this initial meeting either way.

[RobbyPants]

So, what you're saying is you want the players to still take rolls to determine the success of their action, but you want to use other means to do it, right? So, no pre-meeting Diplomacy, but rather pre-meeting Knowledge/Bluff/Disguise instead. In theory, you could come up with a set of circumstances where Diplomacy is the correct skill to use pre-meeting, right?

[MGuy]

Sure you could do a pre-meeting diplomacy. The important thing is that you are DOING something not showing up on the scene and getting one because "I want one". I am against just that. If you perform diplomatic actions before hand or afterward that's fine as long as you are performing an action not showing up and, by the virtue of knowing the target now exists, getting a roll.

[Draco_Argentum]

Why do we roll search and disable device checks instead of having that covered under "knowledge traps and knowledge what traps look like."

Important clarification.

The stances that everyone else wants to call dispositions. Those are not "helpful, friendly, indifferent, hostile" and rolling well on the attitude roll moves the orcs from one to another.

They are "Aggressive, cautious, content, exuberant, focused, pineapple." And when you roll well against the aggressive orcs, they don't become cautious or content, they are still aggressive, they just treat you nicely.

I agree. For NPCs to have some personality instead of all NPC's acting the same they should have mechanics differences. Disposition is the right place for it. The witch might be obstinate, making it hard to convince her to aid the party but also hard to convince her to leave her soon to be flooded house.

Initial reaction should be modified by what the party does, but also the other circumstances. This should take the role of terrain in combats. High ground gives the enemy an attack bonus. Crime wave makes traveling NPCs more suspicious of strangers.

[MGuy]

Why do we roll search and disable device checks instead of having that covered under "knowledge traps and knowledge what traps look like."

Important clarification.

The stances that everyone else wants to call dispositions. Those are not "helpful, friendly, indifferent, hostile" and rolling well on the attitude roll moves the orcs from one to another.

They are "Aggressive, cautious, content, exuberant, focused, pineapple." And when you roll well against the aggressive orcs, they don't become cautious or content, they are still aggressive, they just treat you nicely.

I agree. For NPCs to have some personality instead of all NPC's acting the same they should have mechanics differences. Disposition is the right place for it. The witch might be obstinate, making it hard to convince her to aid the party but also hard to convince her to leave her soon to be flooded house.

Initial reaction should be modified by what the party does, but also the other circumstances. This should take the role of terrain in combats. High ground gives the enemy an attack bonus. Crime wave makes traveling NPCs more suspicious of strangers.

I'm not sure that you and Kaelik are talking about exactly the same thing as I am reading this but let's have at it.

Now I am repeating this to make sure my thinking is right. The witch's Disposition/Attitude is obstinate which makes her harder to convince to... do anything. So I can roughly translate that as the DCs for diplomacy are higher against her. Now assuming for some reason (I have accepted that I can't fathom why someone would want this) you want a reaction roll made when the PCs meet her to determine her reaction to them. What "reactions" are actually available?

[Red_Rob]

Mguy - The Witch needs to have some starting disposition when she meets another creature. What this actually is could be influenced by a limitless variety of things, including how she feels that day, what events have already transpired off camera, what she was thinking about when the encounter happened, her personality, the appearance of the other party, the actions of the other party, etc. etc. There are effectively 2 ways you can resolve this action.

Firstly, your suggestion is the GM just decides after looking at the variables listed and picking the most likely outcome. Secondly, you can make a roll to represent the minor, random stuff listed above and add modifiers for the big stuff like party actions and recent major events.

The "GM decides" model has a number of problems. The major one is that the GM is likely to lean the reaction towards the type of encounter they want, which (with bad GM's) leads to railroading and reduces player agency. It also leads to a feeling of "The GM is fucking us over" if you decide something that goes against what the party wants. Finally, it tends to remove outlying results (like a non-combative patrol of orcs) because the GM feels stupid knowing theres only a 5% chance the orcs would be peaceful and having it happen anyway.

A random roll allows skills and player actions to have a concrete effect on the game, and means when they fail the feeling is "oh shit, it didn't work" and not "WHAT? I roleplayed my heart out and sang an orc drinking song and you STILL had the orcs attack us? Why am I playing a f*$king bard anyway?!?!"

[MGuy]

A random roll allows skills and player actions to have a concrete effect on the game, and means when they fail the feeling is "oh shit, it didn't work" and not "WHAT? I roleplayed my heart out and sang an orc drinking song and you STILL had the orcs attack us? Why am I playing a f*$king bard anyway?!?!"

You are right about MC control but the MC would still be the final arbitrator regardless as he will stills set the DCs, set the bonuses/penalties given, etc etc. If you are playing with a bad MC who wants to railroad he will fudge the numbers anyway and be able to do so "legally" by introducing background to the witch that would add extra penalties in order to get the result (s)he wants anyway.

Moreover if a player put work into dolling themselves up for an encounter they want to diplomatize and they roll bad they will not like it at all. I contend that they will dislike it in a fashion equal to the MC just denying them their chance. I suppose that in the dice case they will direct their anger more at the game than the MC but I am pretty sure they'd just ask the MC to arbitrate it anyway since they put in soooo much work.

[violence in the media]

Mguy, why do you seem so bound and determined to reverse-Oberoni this situation?

"A bad DM will just fuck things up no matter what we do, so let's just have no rules."

Sometimes, it's nice for the MC to be able to fall back on random generation, provided the rules are functional. Maybe you keep a tight rein on everything when you're MC, and every NPC has its place, but some of us play in and run sandbox-style games occassionally where the MC didn't know about the Couatl caravan either--until the dice brought it up.