Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[Novembermike]

It does if the alternative is 'the DM decides everything'.

Then the players need to stop being passive aggressive bitches and talk to the DM? The whole "interpersonal skills" thing isn't that hard to get. If you aren't having fun say something.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Then the players need to stop being passive aggressive bitches and talk to the DM?

So then what do the players do when they think that their course of action is totally reasonable but the DM doesn't think that it is?

Mother May I? has no player agency at all because the DM has the final word. It's also really unfair, because the outcome of the campaign can depend on whether the DM's bowels are acting up or if someone baked the DM's favorite cookies.

[Novembermike]

So then what do the players do when they think that their course of action is totally reasonable but the DM doesn't think that it is?

Mother May I? has no player agency at all because the DM has the final word. It's also really unfair, because the outcome of the campaign can depend on whether the DM's bowels are acting up or if someone baked the DM's favorite cookies.

The DM doesn't have the final word. The players do.

[MGuy]

Rolling hit points and taking formula derived hit points are both fine things to do. The hit point equivalent of Mguy's suggestion would be the DM deciding by fiat that some goblins had a lot of hit points because they weren't "supposed" to drop easily and possibly deciding that other goblins had few hit points because they were.

-Username17

Problem with this reasoning is that some monsters have more Hit Points than others for this very reason. Undead use D12s rather than a goblin with their d8s. If you're going to say shit like this then acknowledge the fact that at some point in the process someone (the DM) had to decide that this was going to be tougher than that. I made this goblin a barbarian because I wanted it to have a lot of HP or some shit is the same as saying this goblin is going to be hostile because I want it to be adversarial.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So for reaction modifiers, how much up and down the scale should modifiers push you before you get to roll?

I think that part of the objection to rolled diplomacy and rolled reaction rolls is that it's possible to generate a result of 'even though you killed all of her muggle children and turned her muggle husband into a banana slug, the Faerie Queen still decides to give you half of the kingdom' which seems absurd to most people. I think that these absurd results should sometimes be generated and an explanation for how it works be left as an exercise to the reader, but a lot of people don't seem to think so. So, how far down the rabbit hole should it take you?

[echoVanguard]

The core issue here still has some merit to be mined, I think. At its heart, the question boils down to whether or not Diplomacy is a skill that should be used to decide all NPC interactions, much in the same way Disable Device is used to decide all trap-based interactions.

Frank's argument appears to be that if a DM decides that an NPC is inherently hostile without a reaction roll, the DM has effectively caused the players to auto-fail their Diplomacy roll by not giving them a chance to use their skill. Hogarth's counter-argument seems to be that such a move is no different than having an NPC not be a gnoll so that the gnoll-hating ranger is denied his favored enemy bonuses.

My interpretation of the issue at hand is that not all NPCs need to be valid Diplomacy targets, much in the same way that not all chasms should be crossed using the Jump skill. However, I do agree with Frank that having a randomly-determined attitude for an NPC does enrich NPC interactions by giving both the players and the DM the opportunity to be surprised by an NPC that would otherwise be hostile reacting differently.

echo

[RadiantPhoenix]

Well, creatures without free will can be immune to diplomacy; creatures with free will should always have the option of deciding not to fight, and that decision is represented by a roll of some kind.

[MGuy]

The idea that the father of the children you just killed has a chance to be completely fine with it for no other reason than having randomness for randomness's sake does not improve the game at all. If Frank is ok with you making an angry Orc he should be ok with you making a Hostile one. Forcing a DM to have to make up excuses for extreme and random results on a die roll for a character that they made is ridiculous. I'm all about player agency (which is why I insist they DO something before dice are rolled) but I also want the DM to have some agency with shit they make as well.

[Swordslinger]

I think that part of the objection to rolled diplomacy and rolled reaction rolls is that it's possible to generate a result of 'even though you killed all of her muggle children and turned her muggle husband into a banana slug, the Faerie Queen still decides to give you half of the kingdom' which seems absurd to most people. I think that these absurd results should sometimes be generated and an explanation for how it works be left as an exercise to the reader, but a lot of people don't seem to think so. So, how far down the rabbit hole should it take you?

Best way to handle it go by the guideline that diplomacy affects PCs just like NPCs, and whatever PCs are comfortable having their characters be forced to do, NPCs should as well.

Diplomacy, like Thievery or Stealth, are skills. You can pick a PC's pockets or hide from him. You can charm him with magic. Diplomacy should work the same way.

If PCs are okay with the king being able to be diplomacy checked into giving away half his kingdom, then they also must be okay with their PCs getting swindled out of their favorite magic sword.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Best way to handle it go by the guideline that diplomacy affects PCs just like NPCs, and whatever PCs are comfortable having their characters be forced to do, NPCs should as well.

Diplomacy, like Thievery or Stealth, are skills. You can pick a PC's pockets or hide from him. You can charm him with magic. Diplomacy should work the same way.

If PCs are okay with the king being able to be diplomacy checked into giving away half his kingdom, then they also must be okay with their PCs getting swindled out of their favorite magic sword.

I wouldn't say I'm *okay* with it, but it's for the same reasons I dislike Charm, Suggestion, Dominate, and Mind Rape.

EDIT: clarified what I meant

[Stubbazubba]

Read the responses in this thread. Several people have said that they would decide reactions for the NPCs before the PCs ever got a chance to interact with them. Where the fuck is the player agency then? This is not an uncommon position and I'm laughing right in your face at this naive magic tea party non-solution.

That is not what anyone has suggested, that is a misinterpretation. Let's see if some light can be shed here, because so far this trench war of a thread has been unenjoyable, unproductive, and ranging on the intellectual scale from infantile to idiotic.

Frank, Kaelik, and others are advocating that any given creature simply has no feeling towards the PCs before they actually see them. McGuy and his few supporters are saying that it is reasonable for encountered creatures to have a disposition towards people like the PCs before they ever see the PCs, which affects how they feel towards the PCs. Let's give an example:

Said creature is a witch who lives in a candy house in a forest (as has often been the case-in-point in this thread). Suppose that a band of knights (who, unbeknownst to the witch, are actually PCs) shows up in front of her house. Frank would say that she has no reason to be hostile towards knights until they actually get in close proximity to her and then the GM makes a roll to determine the witch's initial reaction, based on the attractiveness of said knights and their manner of approach, whether they break in or knock politely.

McGuy poses this hypothetical: Suppose the forest resides within a kingdom which is deeply religious and opposed to witchcraft. The king frequently sends parties of knights to go out and burn her candy house down, which she then rebuilds elsewhere. Despite her noble beginnings, wherein she welcomed all creatures with open arms, she has become somewhat bitter towards mankind in general, and come to hate knights. He would then say that she has a reason to be hostile towards these knights, or at least extremely unfriendly, without ever having seen them or knowing anything more about them in particular, which goes a long way to influencing her reaction, in addition to the specifics of their attractiveness and method of introduction.

In reality, this is not a mechanical issue but two different styles of GMing. Frank says the background of the witch should be more or less determined by the die roll made upon contact to determine reaction, not vice versa, otherwise it's just the GM railroading the events. McGuy says the background should exist independently and might just be more important than said die roll, depending on the background in question, meaning that the witch would realistically have an attitude towards knights before meeting these knights, and that otherwise the world lacks verisimilitude and destroys the creative agency of the GM.

Both answers are completely viable because neither one is taking decisions out of the players' hands. The PCs still have the choice of approaching politely or breaking in. Understand that both Frank and McGuy would still make a roll to determine the witch's reaction, it's just that while Frank would take said reaction result and retroactively create a background to explain it, McGuy would already have a background and apply modifiers reflecting that background to the die roll to determine reaction. Then, assuming she hasn't decided to attack them based on that die roll, the players can choose how to respond, be it a response diplomatic, martial, or otherwise. Player choice is wholly intact either way. It's GM choice that is in question here.

If the GM and Players enjoy running very randomly-generated encounters, and in fact find a thrill in explaining the odd results of random die rolls, then obviously Frank's position of strict random generation, with backstory supporting mechanics, not vice versa, is sufficient and even preferable. If, however, the GM and Players are playing a game with dramatic themes about the nature of "evil" in this close-minded society, then creating the dramatic background of the bitter witch is more important than adhering to random generation. Neither of these is wrong, given the GM has the skill to pull off either in a way that is satisfactory to Players.

This is not a mechanical issue. It's also not the topic of this thread.

[Almaz]

Frank, Kaelik, and others are advocating that any given creature simply has no feeling towards the PCs before they actually see them. McGuy and his few supporters are saying that it is reasonable for encountered creatures to have a disposition towards people like the PCs before they ever see the PCs, which affects how they feel towards the PCs. Let's give an example:

The impression I always got from this thread was that if the witch has been harassed all the time that would create a penalty on her reaction roll, but also that the reason Frank advocates a roll instead of a decided output is so that the players, essentially, can misrepresent themselves, and that any influences on her demeanor would be decided by modifiers to the roll, which can, if necessary, be completely RNG-breaking ones, but also can still give some leeway if there are a lot of modifiers working against that one prejudice.

Which, honestly, straight up seems more reasonable. Sure, McGuy's idea isn't entirely different, but there's a problem if you're not allowed an initial chance to talk, even if it's just one moment of hesitation because they're unfriendly and are about to be hostile - a creature that is already hostile will usually, in most systems which use diplomacy, be able to circumvent diplomacy entirely by rolling initiative, which IS effectively locking it out of the player options.

This is just an impression though, I could have been reading my own things into the arguments.

[MGuy]

Almaz, you are missing entire sections of my arguments that address this where I say the PCs CAN misrepresent themselves. I completely, 100% advocate PC actions triggering a roll. If they wanna dress up, send messages to the Witch, or some other stuff that's fine. That deserves a roll. But players showing up without even saying shit does not deserve a roll. When you're on the battle field and you're fighting the enemy you don't deserve a chance for peace talks unless you do something (raising the white flag of surrender) to deserve it.

What Frank Kaelik, Lago, etc are advocating is a roll based on absolutely nothing but existing in the NPC's presence.

[Almaz]

Almaz, you are missing entire sections of my arguments that address this where I say the PCs CAN misrepresent themselves. I completely, 100% advocate PC actions triggering a roll. If they wanna dress up, send messages to the Witch, or some other stuff that's fine. That deserves a roll. But players showing up without even saying shit does not deserve a roll. When you're on the battle field and you're fighting the enemy you don't deserve a chance for peace talks unless you do something (raising the white flag of surrender) to deserve it.

What Frank Kaelik, Lago, etc are advocating is a roll based on absolutely nothing but existing in the NPC's presence.

Are there reaction checks, or are there not? You cannot have it both ways. It's like saying initiative checks only happen sometimes. Sometimes the initiative check is unimportant when the fight ends before it passes from surprise rounds, but saying you only sometimes get a check is moronic (and surprise, itself, hinges on another check anyways).

My initial reading, honestly, did not ever pick up that you were in favor of reaction checks, and probably discarded the data anyways, because a reaction check you only sometimes make, even if it is a formality in some cases, is not a rule. It is basically referee wankery. I'm not saying a referee has no power to throw out the rules if they don't fit the game (its actually a power based on group consensus), but you shouldn't present a rule that is supposed to hinge on a fairly integral part of the game, like talking to people, and basically leave it up to whimsy. I'd rather just not write the rule. It'd save time and word count for everyone.

[Stubbazubba]

The impression I always got from this thread was that if the witch has been harassed all the time that would create a penalty on her reaction roll, but also that the reason Frank advocates a roll instead of a decided output is so that the players, essentially, can misrepresent themselves, and that any influences on her demeanor would be decided by modifiers to the roll, which can, if necessary, be completely RNG-breaking ones, but also can still give some leeway if there are a lot of modifiers working against that one prejudice.

It's possible I'm guilty of misunderstanding either or both sides, as well, but from my understanding, what you say here is exactly what McGuy has been saying, he just hasn't been very clear about it. McGuy, I think, is advocating for an independent background which creates a potentially significant input on that initial roll, not assigning the output. McGuy, correct me if I'm wrong.

Which, honestly, straight up seems more reasonable. Sure, McGuy's idea isn't entirely different, but there's a problem if you're not allowed an initial chance to talk, even if it's just one moment of hesitation because they're unfriendly and are about to be hostile - a creature that is already hostile will usually, in most systems which use diplomacy, be able to circumvent diplomacy entirely by rolling initiative, which IS effectively locking it out of the player options.

But in fantasy there are abundant encounters where something attacks the characters without giving them a chance to speak, let alone try to influence the thing, based on its own motivation. Often the Diplomacy comes back in when the creature is at sword-point. Of course, most PCs fight until their enemy is dead and never even think about subduing it and asking why it attacked them, then blame the GM for never giving them opportunities to use Diplomacy. That is not the GM's fault.

[Almaz]

It's possible I'm guilty of misunderstanding either or both sides, as well, but from my understanding, what you say here is exactly what McGuy has been saying, he just hasn't been very clear about it. McGuy, I think, is advocating for an independent background which creates a potentially significant input on that initial roll, not assigning the output. McGuy, correct me if I'm wrong.

I honestly don't recall reading a word out of MGuy's posts that wasn't "the ball is always in the referee's court," and his latest comment doesn't thrill me either. I'm not against, you know, the referee just deciding everything outright, but, really, if you're going to admit you're playing magical tea party, you should just set the rules on fire and admit you're playing magical tea party - don't waste page count on explaining rules when they're essentially pointless. MGuy's approach isn't invalid, but it's not an approach where people should be bothering with writing rules.

But in fantasy there are abundant encounters where something attacks the characters without giving them a chance to speak, let alone try to influence the thing, based on its own motivation. Often the Diplomacy comes back in when the creature is at sword-point. Of course, most PCs fight until their enemy is dead and never even think about subduing it and asking why it attacked them, then blame the GM for never giving them opportunities to use Diplomacy. That is not the GM's fault.

This is where good rules writing can save the day. Because I wouldn't place the blame entirely on the players either. There are usually steep penalties for using interaction skills, especially Diplomacy, in combat or an otherwise hostile situation. And there's no real clear way for adjudicating when a monster decides to surrender, or at least pause long enough to talk even if both keep defensive stances (and not leverage as much of a penalty). Many referees will reject attempts to shortcut any amount of their precious monster's HP, and use the fullest amount of penalties they can to make the fight be longer (and thus more impressive, in their mind). The fact that there's no "demand surrender" action clearly written into the rules is kind of lame, and there are rules systems where this exists and works at the times you would think it does - when their defenses are crushed, they're on the ropes, and there isn't much else to do. The system of "fight until 0 HP" is in the rules because often there is no clear way to end a fight without knocking them out and then starting over again.

[Stubbazubba]

Almaz, you are missing entire sections of my arguments that address this where I say the PCs CAN misrepresent themselves. I completely, 100% advocate PC actions triggering a roll. If they wanna dress up, send messages to the Witch, or some other stuff that's fine. That deserves a roll. But players showing up without even saying shit does not deserve a roll. When you're on the battle field and you're fighting the enemy you don't deserve a chance for peace talks unless you do something (raising the white flag of surrender) to deserve it.

What Frank Kaelik, Lago, etc are advocating is a roll based on absolutely nothing but existing in the NPC's presence.

I agree with you except for this bolded part.

Let's say among the knights who show up at the witch's house is an exceedingly attractive knight with hair like sunshine which falls in loose waves, framing his inviting blue eyes, strong jaw and winning smile. Then, just by virtue of being seen by her (assuming she does see them first), he will unconsciously exert a modifier on her reaction roll, however insignificant it might be compared to her loathing of knights in general. So, while in this case, the player decision to load up on Charisma probably won't impact the witch's reaction, it might be important when the party encounters a young female mercenary who is being paid a paltry sum to slip the party poison or something, who also feels that the pay is really not adequate for the job, and would rather be writing love poetry, if only it paid the bills (PS, if you wanted to randomly generate this, once you've got the mercenary's stats figured out, you could roll a die to see how committed to the job she was, and then make up reasons why either way based on the result, which I would put some hooks in there that the party can use to their advantage, as I just did). This rather interesting NPC might just not go through with her job because that knight is dreamy, and all just by virtue of him being seen by her. This initial reaction is different than her initial disposition, that being grudgingly go through with the job, which was altered based on her just seeing the party.

An enemy on a battlefield will have such a huge modifier that the reaction roll can be foregone, I agree, without some proactive step taken by the PCs. Then it's not an initial reaction check, but a reaction to their attempt at Diplomacy.

[fbmf]

McGuy, correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. His name is MGuy.




Game On,
fbmf

[Lago PARANOIA]

As Stubbazubba had indirectly hinted at, one of the main reasons why I like reaction rolls is because they cause NPCs and encounters to develop in ways you don't expect and force development on characters.

The otherwise lovable guard captain deciding that he's got a bone to pick with the party wizard or the orc warband who decides that they really like the PCs for some reason and decide to go back home and seriously reconsider their lives could theoretically happen by DM fiat, but more often than not it doesn't. Reaction rolls are a good way to shake things up and pry some control from the DMs' fingers.

[Stubbazubba]

McGuy, correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. His name is MGuy.




Game On,
fbmf

I did notice that after a couple of posts. How did I read this entire thread thinking there was that 'c' in there?

[MGuy]

@Almaz: There is hardly anything about Reaction Rolls in my posts because I don't care about them. As far as I understand a "Reaction Roll" is made when the PCs enter the Diplomacy game (IE them doing something) which is completely fine. I'm against having the "attitude" be random just so the PCs can have a random starting point in order to get a reaction from. I say if the thing should be hostile based on how I crafted it let the PCs deal with that. I don't roll a creature's class, abilities, skills, immunities, etc at random. So why the fuck should its attitude be random?

@ Sub: Yes. You have thus far been spot on with my meaning and position. As for your suggestion I have a few problems with it yes.
1) I don't consider Charisma "good looks" as I feel it is just force of personality. But this is minor much more importantly...
2) I think that any such "aura of attraction" thing should be an ability that the PC has to get/purchase/put points into etc. This may be about roleplay but it is also a game and I believe that extra screen time should be earned/bought.

@Lago: Again. I don't believe in/like randomness for randomness's sake. As you have said and Stub hinted at random story lines can happen with the random rolls and I don't really think the added level of randomness, that explicitly detracts from a DM having control over their characters, is worth the trade-off. It may just be that that kind of randomness doesn't appeal to me. I like to think that its more that I experience enough randomness from the PCs as is. When DM's setting and NPCs mash up against PC's plans there should be enough randomness and fun to be had as is without forcing the DMs not to be able to play their characters.

[Kaelik]

Mguy, you need to learn to read.

Every fucking post you say "But I'm saying the same thing!"

Then you don't say the same thing, because you reject reaction rolls, because you still don't understand what a reaction roll is.

[echoVanguard]

I'm with Lago in that I think randomness enriches a game. But I also agree with MGuy that it can be troublesome if a mechanic forces a DM not to be able to control NPCs to an adequate degree. There's enough of that with compulsion effects, although it does illustrate that nonmagical characters should have a way to compete with that ability.

echo

[MGuy]

As far as I understand it a Reaction Roll would be equivalent to rolling up Initiative. It will determine the opposition's Reaction to the PCs. Whatever it IS I do not care anyway because it isn't what I'm arguing about. Seriously the post that set your panties on fire was me asking this:

Why is it bad that initial disposition be MC fiat? The MC can and, by god, should know the initial dispositions of stuff he introduces you to even if it simply doesn't care about you IE indifference.

This was the only thing I questioned about Frank's original suggestion. My argument isn't even OVER Reaction because Reaction has never been what I argued about. Which is HOW I can say that I'm saying the same thing.

I even tried to be more explicit when I noticed you AND Frank trying to drag me over into an argument about reaction:

Mguy, how do you respond to "people" you encounter?

If it has anything to do with what the other people are doing and how they present themselves, then your suggested method of handling things is unsatisfactory.

-Username17

How I "respond" to people is a different matter to my "attitude" toward them. If you are asking about my starting disposition to people I don't know I'd say Indifferent. I am generally indifferent towards people I JUST MEET. Now sure before coming face to face with someone certain things may adjust that, Do I know tat they are a part of a group I like/dislike, are they doing something I like/dislike at the moment I meet them, etc etc all would possibly change my initial disposition. This change can be predicted by the MC when the character is made because the MC knows what the NPC knows and how the character FEELS about it because they are the god damn person who made the character.

Now I want to be explicitly clear that any diplomatic moves made after first contact are not what I am talking about. Like at all. So tell me WHY should there be a fucking ROLL made about a preemptively made character's contact disposition. It doesn't make any sense that there would even be a chance that if someone was breaking into my house I somehow found them so appealing, at a glance, that my attitude wouldn't be somewhere down in hostile or unfriendly range. Should the PCs try to diplomatize their way out of it AFTER first contact in order to change disposition when all the greeting are shared then I have no argument with you because that isn't what I'm talking about.

To make this even easier I'll just say how I feel "Reaction Rolls" should work.

PCs meet NPC with a set disposition. Disposition Ranges up and down between Adversarial and Devoted. Each disposition has a range of reactions going from least favorable up to most favorable and the exact reaction towards the PCs are rolled off of this range. This Range is 20 numbers long and starts at the modifier that the disposition gives. In order to break this range of reactions the PCs would have to be in an appropriate situation that would allow for a roll off the Range (either below or above it). This would generally include situational modifiers, any modifiers that the PCs might have from abilities, whether or not the NPC was given specific orders to do something, etc. If you roll above or below the Range you don't change the target's disposition even though you may get a reaction appropriate to the range you rolled on. Certain situations such as "law" or "fear" will add options to the range or restrict others. Restricted actions that show up are replaced with "flee/Leave" or with "roll again"

Yes, Adversaries will most likely attack you on sight, and yes Devotees can't be counted on to do the same. This is unless the situation forces something else to happen. Ideally there'd be enough situational modifiers for PCs and MCs to play around with. Hopefully they do research and attempt to start at a higher Disposition to begin with by performing disguise/bluff/etc checks to make things easier, or not if they don't want to.

This is not nearly as random as having Initial Disposition based off of nothing that the MC has to retroactively explain. It also doesn't allow PCs to get a Diplomacy roll just cuz. This puts enough narrative control in the hands of the MC while allowing PCs to be able to do things to circumvent it. It even rewards clever players for setting up situations where they can triumph in otherwise hopeless conditions.

Now thing is none of this is actual Diplomacy. None of that is the PCs actually using the skill. I understand the need to determine a starting point for PCs to Diplomatize their way through, I can understand the want for having certain reactions. But what I can't understand is why someone would need to inject more randomness than necessary or want skill benefits when not using a skill.

[Kaelik]

To make this even easier I'll just say how I feel "Reaction Rolls" should work.

PCs meet NPC with a set disposition. Disposition Ranges up and down between Adversarial and Devoted.

So then When Bob the Pit Fiend who is Adversarial meets Jim the Pit Fiend who is Adverserial, they fight to the death, and when John the Devoted Illithid meets James the Devoted Gith, they are best friends, because everyone knows that when two devils run into each other, only one can live, but that Illithids get along fine with Gith.

Or wait, that's fucking retarded, and you still don't understand that you can't be naturally devoted without being devoted to a specific thing or person, which requires having previous interactions with them, which makes it not a disposition, but a freaking reaction, and hence, exactly the thing that the DM doesn't set up with fiat, but instead something generated by a reaction roll.

Whether Bob the Balor is devoted or adversarial is determined by a fucking reaction roll, that's what a reaction roll does, that's the actual purpose of the reaction roll, to determine if Bob the Balor is devoted or adversarial or whatever else you want to call the various reactions NPCs can have to PCs.