Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[Lago PARANOIA]

Note that Frank's system is explicitly supposed to work before the party even says any words. So they could (in theory) waltz through an adventure without a chance to do anything at all.

You mean like how in theory someone could roll all 1s for their attack rolls and get TPK'd by a random band of level-4 orc raiders before the adventure even starts properly?

At any rate, the basic objection to adding more random variables to the plot of a story is that it's easy to come up with stupid and/or boring stories that way

Arbitration is always more stupid/boring than randomness. Having an innkeeper decide to attack you in the middle of the night and sell you to the slaves only happens if the DM decides to make it part of their story--which means that due to the Law of Conservation of Detail, Law of Cartographic Elegance, and plain ol' Railroading means that it becomes predictable and harder to surprise people.

Of COURSE the riverboat captain decided to make a detour towards the pirate camp rather than take us to the Amazons. We're only in the first act. OF COURSE the ninjas decided to attack us in the middle of the night before the wedding. We threatened to expose the chancellor's scheme and only had 1 out of the recommended 4 battles for the day. OF COURSE we don't meet a crazy wandering merchant caravan who sells magical gear and is offering a prize if we find their jester; the module only has 60 pages in it and is titled 'Attack of the Mind Flayers'. This is what tends to happen when encounters and NPC reactions to PCs are delivered by DM fiat.

[hogarth]

Note that Frank's system is explicitly supposed to work before the party even says any words. So they could (in theory) waltz through an adventure without a chance to do anything at all.

You mean like how in theory someone could roll all 1s for their attack rolls and get TPK'd by a random band of level-4 orc raiders before the adventure even starts properly?

That's an awesome argument. "Since dumb things are already possible, it makes sense to add the possibility of more dumb things!"

Arbitration is always more stupid/boring than randomness.

(a) I don't think that word means what you think it means.
(b) You really think every book ever written would be improved by turning it into a "Choose Your Own Adventure" and flipping a coin?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Huhhh? Who said that that result was dumb?

In order for the game to have any suspense at all, it needs to be able to theoretically generate the result of 'you get killed before you even figure out that the world needs saving'. This chance can be very small, like 1%, but it needs to have a chance of actually happening. Otherwise it's just time-wasting filler.

I think results like 'the Dark Lord gives up without a fight because he's fallen in love with the paladin at first sight' or 'the king decides not to give the PCs the reward for saving the princess because he really hates elves and is a cheapskate' at the climax of the adventure aren't dumb. TTRPGs aren't single-author fiction with clearly defined denouments and climaxes. They should occasionally develop in unexpected ways, even if it doesn't jive with our expectations of what a story in traditional fiction should be. Reaction rolls are a great way to do this without removing player agency.

[Username17]

Note that Frank's system is explicitly supposed to work before the party even says any words.

Not necessarily. It's supposed to happen after they make a first impression. How thy make a first impression is situational. It may well be that they are spotted by sneaky kobold scouts who take stock of them before they say anything. But they might also make a first impression by shouting "Hello the cave!" in passable Draconic and make a first impression before they have been seen. Or the first impression could be from them kicking the door down shouting "Drop your weapons!" and involve them being seen and heard both.

What I am objecting to is the characterization that it is even possible for characters to have a reaction to the PCs before a first impression has been made. Before they know you exist, they can't really be "in combat" with you in any meaningful sense of the term.

-Username17

[MGuy]

@Mguy -- It really seems to me that your argument is rooted in the fear that if the MC can't authoritatively (arbitrarily) state "these dudes attack you" that there will be some game where a party that waltzes through an adventure on the might of their words.

Quelle horreur.

Not at all. Right now my fear is that extra randomness is being injected at the expense of DM agency. It doesn't add anything to the game. What's more the only reason I keep speaking on hostile actions (even though I've repeatedly mentioned other dispositions) is that that's the only ones people are bringing up, like at all.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not at all. Right now my fear is that extra randomness is being injected at the expense of DM agency.

What's so great about DM agency? What was the DM going to do with their authoritatively deciding starting NPC attitudes that a random roll wouldn't?

[MGuy]

That the DM gets a hand in deciding how characters he makes act before PC intervention. Let me pose this question to you. Do you think it would add to the game if players were subject to this system?

[Lago PARANOIA]

That the DM gets a hand in deciding how characters he makes act before PC intervention.

Of course the DM gets a hand in making the characters. They're the ones who decide that the Orc King really hates dwarves but loves women in loinclothes and was rescued by a band of stinking elves so is inclined to cut elves some slack despite his prejudices and spent all last night drinking and has a hangover and is automatically irritated and is really open to bribes of gold. The DM could have just as easily made the Orc King a secret intellectual who admires magicians, tries his best to avoid racial prejudices, had a dream from Gruumsh to help the first band of adventurers wearing gold, and really loves the taste of roasted halfling flesh. These two characters will respond differently to PC approaches or appearances.

Do you think it would add to the game if players were subject to this system?

That's an interesting question. I'm inclined to say 'no', but that's only because PCs only get to control one character and if they don't even have control of that one then the DM might as well be playing by himself and letting the dice dictate PC behavior for these kind of scenes.

If the PCs get to control multiple characters (i.e. a couple of cohorts, a familiar, a 100-person army, etc.) then I'd say that this adds to the game because otherwise the PCs have a vested interest in making all of their characters become tools or mouthpieces for whatever agenda the PCs want to push. This means that there's no last-minute betrayals of apprentices, no familiars refusing to sacrifice their lives for their master, no armies deserting the PCs no matter how badly they're treated, etc..

[MGuy]

1) Yes. And I'd like to keep decisions like that in the DM made before the PCs meet him. Having to do it off the cuff is much more difficult than having time to clearly flesh out the character.

2) The DM is the one who has to be catering to the players. I would not mind this system on some random NPC no one, including the DM, cares about. But the DM is making characters to lose, die, and give spotlight only to the PCs. It is a lesson that I had to learn in the first 2 years of me playing this game (I was the only one who even kind of knew the rules and the only one willing to DM). All the DM's characters are temporary and basically self wank since most of the back stories won't be seen by the PCs. I find that players will be the ones, in the end, to decide if an NPC is worth paying attention to and often times it is a no. The DM may create the world but he's doing more refereeing than actually playing the game. I don't feel that this particular aspect of DMing should be completely left to the dice.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1) Yes. And I'd like to keep decisions like that in the DM made before the PCs meet him. Having to do it off the cuff is much more difficult than having time to clearly flesh out the character.

Okay, but what does that have to do with reaction rolls?

I don't feel that this particular aspect of DMing should be completely left to the dice.

Who said it was completely left to the dice? You can still have a range and probability of results. 'Lets the PCs go and gives them all a pony' doesn't have to have the same chance (or even any) as 'schedules them for execution' or vice-versa. Depending on how you adjust the reaction roll modifiers--meaning that this is dependent on how you construct the NPCs--sometimes the only range of results can be 'demands that they get life imprisonment' and 'demands that they are tortured for several months and executed during a parade'. There's not really much you can do outside of mind-control or Aphrodite-level charming ability, but these generate different stories nonetheless.

[MGuy]

1) Not reaction rolls, initial attitude/disposition is what I'm arguing about.

2) I'm not saying "no" to reaction rolls. I laid down how I think they should work. I'm saying "no" to a random roll deciding the attitude of the NPC, and retroactively redoing their background based on actions the PCs didn't take yet.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not saying "no" to reaction rolls. I laid down how I think they should work. I'm saying "no" to a random roll deciding the attitude of the NPC, and retroactively redoing their background based on actions the PCs didn't take yet.

Retroactively determining their background is a necessity not only for reaction rolls but for roleplaying in general. The dice are just an abstraction of the process and if it's that important to figure out what happened during the process you need to make something up.

Sometimes the game will provide you with a reason (like the aforementioned reluctant mercenary NPC, or even an NPC-independent one like 'it was raining really hard and no one could see') but othertimes it doesn't. If you don't like the rationalization for why a result was generated then it's your own damn fault for not being specific enough and for having to go with the nearest plausible explanation.

[MGuy]

And I approached this very thing before. Remember I was the one who said, "There's enough randomness with DM's stuff coming into contact with players." I don't see any need to add more randomness to it. Its hard enough to make up believable bullshit when you have time to do so. Its exponentially harder to do it off the cuff.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Its hard enough to make up believable bullshit when you have time to do so. Its exponentially harder to do it off the cuff.

I think that this is rather bogus and sad, because the 'why' of cooperative roleplaying is by far the easiest and most fun part. Coming up with reasons why the Black Prince would decide to aid your party of do-gooders not only takes less than 5 seconds worth of work but is interesting enough that you can spend several minutes on it. If the only way you can think of believable explanations for the Black Prince's behavior is to have it done ahead of time (meaning that deviating from a pre-decided stimulus/response action would automatically make a worse story) then I'm just going to go ahead and say that roleplaying is just not for you.

[hogarth]

Its hard enough to make up believable bullshit when you have time to do so. Its exponentially harder to do it off the cuff.

I think that this is rather bogus and sad, because the 'why' of cooperative roleplaying is by far the easiest and most fun part.

I don't know what to tell you. In my experience, it's usually pretty clear when the GM is making shit up as he goes along because of a certain lack of consistent internal logic and overall sloppiness (not always, but usually). For some games (like Toon or Paranoia, say), that adds to the experience for me. For other games, it detracts from the experience.

[MGuy]

Its hard enough to make up believable bullshit when you have time to do so. Its exponentially harder to do it off the cuff.

I think that this is rather bogus and sad, because the 'why' of cooperative roleplaying is by far the easiest and most fun part. Coming up with reasons why the Black Prince would decide to aid your party of do-gooders not only takes less than 5 seconds worth of work but is interesting enough that you can spend several minutes on it. If the only way you can think of believable explanations for the Black Prince's behavior is to have it done ahead of time (meaning that deviating from a pre-decided stimulus/response action would automatically make a worse story) then I'm just going to go ahead and say that roleplaying is just not for you.

If you say so. I don't know why having a character background that fuels actions set ahead of time and acting upon the background you made for a character is not roleplaying. I mean when I play as a PC I try to consider who my character is, what he's done, and what he's experienced and have that fuel my responses and somehow that's roleplaying. But when the DM does it its not roleplaying.

[Lago PARANOIA]

In my experience, it's usually pretty clear when the GM is making shit up as he goes along because of a certain lack of consistent internal logic and overall sloppiness (not always, but usually).

Is it really that hard? Okay, here's a scenario. The party has a reputation of being do-gooders who are fighting in the name of justice and peace. They're also multi-racial and also killed the previous Dark Lord in a rather brutal way and even caused half of the principality to rebel. The Black Prince, an unapologetic murderous villain with more than enough reasons to hate the PCs, is the successor to the throne.

Now the PCs are at the mercy of the Black Prince who is trying to come up with a fate for the PCs. 90% of the time his heart would be closed off despite the PC's pleas, but they managed to nail the 'listen to the PCs for a minute'. The orc bard, the race the Black Prince hates most of all, scores a critical success after burning some Edge and gets a result of 'the Black Prince decides to let the PCs go after extracting a heavy fine from them'.

So how is the DM supposed to explain the unlikely change of heart? I can think of a bunch.

• More than evil and hatred, the Prince is greedy and is so astounded by how much the PCs have on them that he's going to let them quest in their realm and try to capture them again. Bam, another 100,000 gold pieces.
• Before the Black Prince had their audience, his sister ran up to them and begged them to spare the lives of the PCs because she was carrying one of their children. The BP has a huge soft spot for his sister but warns that he'll only spare them if she has a convenient miscarriage and they never come back to the realm.
• The Black Prince is working for a secret demigod who actually likes the PCs and gave the Black Prince explicit instructions not to harm them yet. The secret demigod didn't exist as-of yet but you needed an antagonist for the next plot thread and you might as well give them some relevance.
• The chancellor warned the Black Prince that the PCs are VERY popular with the locals and that killing or maiming them would cause a revolt. Since the army can barely contain the current political situation he decides to be better safe than sorry.
• The Black Prince intends to use the PCs as a peace offering to a nearby principality. They get 'let go' but into the care of someone who also wishes them harm. Out of the frying pan into the fire as it were.
• The Black Prince is a Caim or a Luca Blight type. They really love swordfighting and the PCs are the closest people who have enough power to challenge them in years, but still not enough. He's letting them go with the intention of fighting them and stealing their power in a few months after their power levels increase.

In all of these cases you'll probably have to make up details about the campaign world you would not have had to if you had instead went with the 'Black Prince sends the PCs to the execution site'. And I think that only someone excessively pedantic would poo-poo any of these plot twists just because the DM had to make it up on the fly.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you say so. I don't know why having a character background that fuels actions set ahead of time and acting upon the background you made for a character is not roleplaying.

Because no one is going to have a background that explains and covers every little detail, especially not the DM. And if something in someone's background doesn't explain why they did a certain thing then you have a chance to insert an additional detail that suddenly makes everything make sense.

Using a background as an excuse as to why you don't want this certain thing to happen is not only wishy-washy and inflexible, it's also impractical due to the Law of Conservation of Detail. That is the essence of roleplaying, otherwise you might as well just not even be there.

[MGuy]

I don't need it to explain every detail, just their current attitude.

[Stubbazubba]

Huhhh? Who said that that result was dumb?

In order for the game to have any suspense at all, it needs to be able to theoretically generate the result of 'you get killed before you even figure out that the world needs saving'. This chance can be very small, like 1%, but it needs to have a chance of actually happening. Otherwise it's just time-wasting filler.

Are you serious? Maybe someone enjoys character development and role-playing more than the tension of a die roll whereupon the entire universe could instantaneously implode in on itself for randomness' sake? It's supposed to be interactive, collaborative fiction, with give-and-take on both the Players and GM's part, but that does not mean it all of a sudden need not follow any of the guidelines that make good fiction! I personally find games where the GM is just randomly generating bundles of stats for the PCs to try their luck against to get boring really fast. I much prefer a story arc with villains with pre-set motivations, with an internal logic and causality, over such trivial dice-rolling exercises.

I think results like 'the Dark Lord gives up without a fight because he's fallen in love with the paladin at first sight' or 'the king decides not to give the PCs the reward for saving the princess because he really hates elves and is a cheapskate' at the climax of the adventure aren't dumb. TTRPGs aren't single-author fiction with clearly defined denouments and climaxes. They should occasionally develop in unexpected ways, even if it doesn't jive with our expectations of what a story in traditional fiction should be. Reaction rolls are a great way to do this without removing player agency.

Then you may as well roll a die every hour of game time and see if the Dark Lord decides to retire to the Netherworld and relinquish his dark land to the happy folk. The game world needs to have NPCs with independent motivations that are driven by the DM and not random die rolls, otherwise, player action becomes inconsequential. I want to play a game where my character strives to overcome a force that would absolutely otherwise overrun everything my character holds dear. I don't think the players should ever have the option of ignoring the Big Bad with any hope of things working out in the end anyway because of a random die roll. That does not create an interesting story, it weakens the adventure, weakens the collaborative creativity of the group in exchange for cheap, off-the-cuff explanations which do not make interesting fiction or interesting games.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, what, the game is only interesting if the enemies are in it 'for the evulz'? I'm sorry, but as a player, I'd rather have a game where the NPCs are assumed to have complicated motivations, and as MC, I'd rather not have to write out a whole backstory to do that.

Are you serious? Maybe someone enjoys character development and role-playing more than the tension of a die roll whereupon the entire universe could instantaneously implode in on itself for randomness' sake?

As I understand it, protons have some non-zero (although pretty close) probability of spontaneously decaying into lighter subatomic particles. This would mean that not rolling to see whether the universe randomly ends in-game would be unrealistic.

[hogarth]

Then you may as well roll a die every hour of game time and see if the Dark Lord decides to retire to the Netherworld and relinquish his dark land to the happy folk.

Also, you should also re-roll the Dark Lord's intelligence before every encounter. Because it might turn out that he's really a mental defective who was given a super-powerful intelligence potion and the effect just happened to wear off.

[MGuy]

The best thing heroes can ever do to defeat the lord of evil is to meet him then run away until he instantly falls in love with one of them. Surely at some point the Dark Lord will instantly change his ways because the players left his presence then came back there-by qualifying for another attitude roll where they get the chance to become his love interest. Its like playing rocket launcher tag except the rocket is fired each time the PCs meet someone.

[RadiantPhoenix]

That presumes several things including:
* You get to re-roll first impressions every time you meet someone
* You can leave and return an arbitrarily large number of times without the BBEG killing you or completing his evil plan or whatever
* Your probability of getting a result of 'love' on the reaction roll is higher than your probability of instagibbing him on an attack

Only the last might be true in a real implementation of this system.

[Chamomile]

The reaction roll is really useful...For unnamed NPCs. It allows a GM to generate their attitude and extrapolate their personality without having to come up with it himself either completely on the spot (hurting quality) or well in advance (increasing the workload on the GM, tremendously if he's got a lot of different cultures in a small area).

But in the case of named NPCs whose background and personality I'll already have worked out in advance? Changing that on a die roll could have huge effects if he's important. Like, if the Black Prince was not originally planned to be greedy but now he is because the dice say so, I have to figure out why that wealthy merchant port he sacked couldn't just bribe him off, which could cascade into other nonsensical situations, requiring some absurd retcons as to why it seemed like the port was thriving when the players were there, but it was really destitute.