Social BS

[virgil]

He wouldn't kill a wizard unless they DO cast charm person and fail but he WOULD kill a bard the moment they MIGHT attempt to achieve something by talking.

Does it hurt to be stupid? People don't kill the wizard until after they cast charm because it's obvious and only targets one person. If the wizard is powerful enough to charm every witness at once, then communications will be fvcking strained, just as if a siren came to town.

The reason we have a recognizable culture is because there isn't an inherent asymmetric threat from engaging in non-intimidation conversation on par with Mentok the Mind Taker. Aka, we expect a level of verisimilitude you have proven to be actively hostile to; and if words are weapons, then the culture needs to treat them as such, which will obviously require a fair bit of world-building to accommodate.

[DSMatticus]

How do we, in the real world, react to that sort of thing?

Say, to cult leaders. They've demonstrated an ability to convince people of their opinion even when those people were against it to start. From what I've seen, the general response is to a) not get in situations where they have a lot of opportunities to discuss their opinions with you and b) warn your loved ones to do the same. Then there are the people who misestimate the amount of time they can hold out and go because they're curious and end up staying. I figure as long as diplomancy takes a long enough time that someone can reasonably walk away before it overwhelms their predetermination to walk away (or they think it does), no weapons need be involved. Shorter than that and you need to find a more direct way of keeping the diplomancer from talking to you.

Con artists and cult leaders are a different beast. Their words aren't dangerous; they employ specific methods of persuasion which are dangerous, identifying and understanding those methods of persuasion offers considerable resistance, knowing that the person you're talking to is a con artist/cult leader offers considerable resistance, and the use of those methods of persuasion actually is (to varying extents) illegal. You really can tell a con artist directions without worrying that he'll walk away with your life savings. Most people really do respond to a con artist like it's a (not particularly urgent) threat to their safety; they walk away and possibly contact the police. Then the police really do show up and use force against con artists exactly like those con artists were walking around pointing dangerous weapons at people (where the weapons in question are the cons themselves, not their words). Unless the con artists you're talking about are bankers or other white collar criminals, in which case the cops usually just show up and spray everyone whose bitching with pepper spray instead.

A diplomancer is just a name for a dude who is abstractly very persuasive. Knowing that someone is very persuasive does not make them less persuasive; fuck, if you call it "leadership" it's considered a positive trait frequently meant to indicate they deserve to be listened to. Diplomancers don't really have specific methods of persuasion; that sort of action granularity is typically lost in the abstraction, and you just [diplomacy] at things with [results]. So you can't prepare yourself by understanding the trick, because there is no trick. It's just a dude talking to you.

Using opt-out as a solution is clumsy and awkward, because the point of diplomacy is to determine how NPC's feel about your requests. You're basically talking about letting them opt out of wanting to do the things that they want to do. Diplomacy isn't an exercise of force that an actor should avoid when the outcomes are undesirable; it's a discussion that determines which outcomes an actor might find desirable. You have to go full meta "the DM doesn't want this NPC to want this, so the NPC opts out."

But you could add different kinds of diplomacy actions with different levels of reasonable rewards and different levels of perceived threateningness, such that asking a dude for directions is not the least bit threatening but asking a dude for his life savings might actually earn you a facestabbing from that dude or the city guard - because the sort of intense techniques needed to persuade someone to do that are legitimately considered dangerous and criminal, like you were a con artist walking around conning people.

[virgil]

But you could add different kinds of diplomacy actions with different levels of reasonable rewards and different levels of perceived threateningness, such that asking a dude for directions is not the least bit threatening but asking a dude for his life savings might actually earn you a facestabbing from that dude or the city guard - because the sort of intense techniques needed to persuade someone to do that are legitimately considered dangerous and criminal, like you were a con artist walking around conning people.

This is something I can get behind, and already have at least explored now that I think about it. There'd probably be a certain level of implied danger just for wanting to extend conversations, just like asking someone to come with you into a secluded alley; like how a stranger wanting to keep talking is creepy.

[momothefiddler]

stuff

Does diplomancy wear off? I just realized that (I think) it doesn't, in which case we're not comparing it to a con man where people make a rash decision and then regret it, but a (e.g. religious/political) orator where people voluntarily give him half their money and then maintain long-term that it was a worthwhile decision. Naturally, the people who disagree (especially the former heirs of that money) will make a stink, but if there's no Duration or big reveal or whatever it's a lot harder to differentiate between the person's unmodified desire (now I think of it, a meaningless and distracting concept) and their response to communication.

I've personally made decisions in response to other people's speech that, afterward, I wasn't sure if they were the best, but I considered them my own rather than a hostile act. Hell, I work in retail and I often can't tell where the line is between things I offer people because they're good for me and things I offer people because they're good for them, much less between what they decide based on my offers vs what they would otherwise have chosen.

And treating diplomacy as inherently hostile leaves you unable to handle situations where the resultant state is a pareto improvement over the starting state (e.g. people who come in wanting x computer but then leave with y computer where y computer will actually give do the things they need rather than being a waste of money like x computer would).

EDIT: fuck, my comparison to sales made me realize that:
1) I know marketing works
2) I know marketing is meant to change my mind about products I want
3) I do not think I will be better off if I decide that Apple products are worth the price
4) I sometimes want to stab marketers
5) Despite all this, all I do about it is vaguely (and, I'm pretty sure, at less than a perfect success rate) attempt to resist the persuasion

[virgil]

EDIT: fuck, my comparison to sales made me realize that:
1) I know marketing works
2) I know marketing is meant to change my mind about products I want
3) I do not think I will be better off if I decide that Apple products are worth the price
4) I sometimes want to stab marketers
5) Despite all this, all I do about it is vaguely (and, I'm pretty sure, at less than a perfect success rate) attempt to resist the persuasion

The reason why you aren't averse to any attempt at marketing is because the stakes are low. When the difference between resisting their pitch and not is a different computer, or spending an extra 10% for the extended warranty plan, then the social repercussions of literally stabbing marketers isn't worth it.
Actual dangerous stuff like cults very specifically rely on targeting people who are vulnerable for many of their numbers, and require more intensive methods than what's permissible by marketers. If cult leaders could reliably recruit people in a single conversation in every-day situations, then conversation *is* an inherently hostile act because of the stakes involved. If cult leaders like that are sufficiently rare, then regular society will continue normally except when they recognize the Diplomancer and treat them as a siren.

[Krusk]

I've seen some of the superman questions here before. I didn't read in depth because I wasn't working on social stuff then, but I am now. Do you mind if I ask some questions?

Super Dickery. In many "social defense" systems, a powerful character is hard to diplomacize, which causes Superman to default to hostile or at least dickish to pretty much everyone.

Not sure I'm clear? Because superman can beat people up, it is hard to convince him not to because (Reasons)? Are those reasons tied to the scaling problem of levels IE he has better saves/hp/skills?

By trying it to your social rank per clan, and not your levels in face puncher, it seems like you would eliminate this problem, right? You are a level 20 face puncher, but only rank 1 in your clan. People can convince you to do stuff for them pretty easy, and if the stuff they want done is punching faces, you are probably a pretty big target. That seems like an ideal outcome.

No soup for Superman. Superman is an altruist who does not need your soup. A forward looking model shows that there is actually no benefit to you for giving Superman free soup, whether he just rescued your grandmother or not.

Not sure how this is bad? Superman helps dudes all the time. If you give him free soup he continues helping you. If you don't give him free soup he still helps you just as much. This is because superman likes helping dudes.

This seems like it would be represented by allowing players to track NPCs favor with their PCs on their own, and hand out bonus points at their discretion. I play superman, I want to love everyone and help everyone with everything. I give everyone +100 to their score. If they ask me to help murder orphans, that drops their score by -(enough not to do it).

NPCs reacting to PC superman, give out bonus points at the discretion indicated for their faction unless that NPC has special notes otherwise.

Die for the Superman. Individual uses of Superman's powers are worth more than most people. In an absolute value social credit system, Superman can ask people to die for him in exchange for favors that are completely trivial to him.

That again sounds like a desirable outcome for high level characters. Saw the new hobbit last night, and Thorin basically tells his pals "We are going to demand war, even though that army of a thousand elves will kill us because I like gold". His pals go for it, even though they will obviously die because they value his social currency this much. This then lowers his future social credit with him, and when he demands they throw bilbo from the ledge they aren't so eager.

I'll trade you a paper airplane. Superman's powers don't take a lot of time or effort for him to use. So a relative effort social credit system would predict that you can get Superman to knock down a building in exchange for a paper airplane or a carrot.

This seems like it would fall into the "You get points for doing something someone wants for them" clause of the hypothetical rules. Superman presumably doesn't want a carrot. Even if its easy for him to blow up buildings, you can give him all the carrots in the world and he just doesn't give a shit. You need something he actually wants before he listens to you if you aren't on the same playing field. in regards to peasants vs superman.

[Username17]

EDIT: fuck, my comparison to sales made me realize that:
1) I know marketing works
2) I know marketing is meant to change my mind about products I want
3) I do not think I will be better off if I decide that Apple products are worth the price
4) I sometimes want to stab marketers
5) Despite all this, all I do about it is vaguely (and, I'm pretty sure, at less than a perfect success rate) attempt to resist the persuasion

The reason why you aren't averse to any attempt at marketing is because the stakes are low. When the difference between resisting their pitch and not is a different computer, or spending an extra 10% for the extended warranty plan, then the social repercussions of literally stabbing marketers isn't worth it.
Actual dangerous stuff like cults very specifically rely on targeting people who are vulnerable for many of their numbers, and require more intensive methods than what's permissible by marketers. If cult leaders could reliably recruit people in a single conversation in every-day situations, then conversation *is* an inherently hostile act because of the stakes involved. If cult leaders like that are sufficiently rare, then regular society will continue normally except when they recognize the Diplomancer and treat them as a siren.

This is bullshit. The stakes on car adverts and pitches for technical schools and mortgages are incredibly high.

-Username17

[virgil]

This is bullshit. The stakes on car adverts and pitches for technical schools and mortgages are incredibly high.

Doesn't advertising rely on a combination of "already looking for one" and black swans (one sale out of maybe 1000+ people exposed)? The higher stakes for mortgages and such don't rely solely on Diplomacy, but include Bluff to make sure you don't *know* what the stakes are; and non-immediate/uninformed consequences are way easier to deceive.

Even then, the higher stakes stuff like technical schools and mortgages still generally require way more work/time than a single pitch; and I've already referred to the inherent distrust in strangers inviting you into a protracted conversation.

[Ice9]

Multiple levels of Diplomacy, I can totally get behind. Like, IRL, if some cult leader says "Hi, can I tell you about [Cult]?" - well, I'll probably say no, but I won't get upset that he asked, because a single sentence is no threat. If he wanted to spend five minutes talking about the cult - I'd be wary, because that's enough time for a confidence scam, but might listen if there was a good reason to. If he wanted me to come hang out for 24 hours on his compound, that would be a "hell no", because that's how brainwashing happens.

So if "I'd like a wholesale price on those rations" Diplomacy and "Be my slave for life" Diplomacy were distinct actions that people can tell the difference between, then that solves the problem.

[DSMatticus]

And treating diplomacy as inherently hostile leaves you unable to handle situations where the resultant state is a pareto improvement over the starting state (e.g. people who come in wanting x computer but then leave with y computer where y computer will actually give do the things they need rather than being a waste of money like x computer would).

You're somewhat missing the point. Diplomacy isn't not threatening because it can lead to good things, it's threatening because it can lead to bad things. It's exactly like how the fairy witch might be conjuring beautiful clothing for Cinderella to visit the ball in, but she also might be casting dominate person to use her as a source of free manual labor; adventurer corpses don't feed themselves to her tower's moat crocodiles. So when a fairy witch shows up out of the blue and starts magicking at you unannounced, you should probably just attack or run. Similarly, a diplomancer might be offering genuine advice or asking a completely neutral question, but it remains true that the diplomancer might also be making you his bitch. There is no way to tell, because while they are just words they are also the diplomancer's metaphorical sword and he can't talk to you without pointing that metaphorical sword ominously at your earholes.

In setting, the reasonable response to a diplomancer's silver tongue is exactly the same response you'd give a wizard's crackling hands and booming voice; they are dangerous weapons, and unless you know and trust the diplomancer/wizard you don't want them directed at you.

5) Despite all this, all I do about it is vaguely (and, I'm pretty sure, at less than a perfect success rate) attempt to resist the persuasion

You live under a powerful government which is claiming a monopoly on the use of force, and that powerful government does not give a fuck about, say, mortgage bankers ripping you off, but it does give a fuck about you stabbing a mortgage banker. If the diplomancer in question were your king or a friend of your king, you definitely should not stab the diplomancer in the face unless you're prepared to topple the throne, but you also still shouldn't let him talk to you if you can avoid it. Similarly, you shouldn't go around stabbing mortgage bankers, but you should still automatically assume every mortgage banker wants to rip you off and is incredibly dangerous to you in that regard.

This is bullshit. The stakes on car adverts and pitches for technical schools and mortgages are incredibly high.

As above, I'd say this has far less to do with the fact that we don't think mortgage bankers are (sometimes criminally) dangerous people making dangerous offers and more to do with the fact that ripping people off while wearing a white-collar shirt is considered both permissible and respectable by the institutions with the authority to shoot people. I'm almost positive you think basically all of those things should be tightly regulated, which implies you'd agree that they are dangerous to people in some form or another. I would say virgil's answer is less bullshit and more... incomplete. There are forms of dangerous manipulation society happens to condone because... fuck you, that's why.

---

Here's a thought inspired by the mortgage banker stuff; would hypothetical D&D power structures consider diplomancy respectable like fraudulent and manipulative banking or criminal like a confidence trick? I'm gonna say the extent to which diplomancy would be permissible to the powers that be is proportional to the extent which it scales with level. If it takes awesome people to diplomancy awesome people, then it's no different than an awesome person stabbing another awesome person in the face and usurping his holdings and authority; business as usual. But if little people can diplomancy awesome people, then its power to upset the status quo warrants crushing.

[momothefiddler]

5) Despite all this, all I do about it is vaguely (and, I'm pretty sure, at less than a perfect success rate) attempt to resist the persuasion

You live under a powerful government which is claiming a monopoly on the use of force, and that powerful government does not give a fuck about, say, mortgage bankers ripping you off, but it does give a fuck about you stabbing a mortgage banker. If the diplomancer in question were your king or a friend of your king, you definitely should not stab the diplomancer in the face unless you're prepared to topple the throne, but you also still shouldn't let him talk to you if you can avoid it. Similarly, you shouldn't go around stabbing mortgage bankers, but you should still automatically assume every mortgage banker wants to rip you off and is incredibly dangerous to you in that regard.

Aha. No arguments here. Very well.

[Grek]

I think that limiting what social interactions can do by how long the target is willing to listen is probably the answer. Does anyone see a problem with a diplomancer character potentially having any of these abilities?

As a standard action:
-Convince someone to tell them what time it is.
-Draw the attention of everyone within 30'.
-Offend someone to the point they become your enemy.
-Bewitch someone into listening via overtly magical music.

With a one minute pitch:
-Convince someone to tell them their first name.
-Grift someone out of Turnip Economy items.
-Make someone trust a single plausible lie until it is pointed out.
-Bewitch someone into obeying a single command via overt magic.

With a hour long conversation:
-Convince someone to go on a date with them.
-Make someone stubbornly defend a single lie until proven wrong.
-Grift someone out of Gold Economy items.
-Place someone into a hypnotic trance via overt magic.

With several hours of interaction:
-Convince someone that you're an authority figure.
-Convince someone to come spend the weekend.
-Convince someone that someone else is actually their enemy.
-Alter someone's memories of an event via overt magic.

[Chamomile]

I take issue with the "grift someone out of X" options. If I'm a wish economy demi-god, you can get me to give up a turnip economy item with a one-round action just by being sufficiently irritating in the hopes that giving you what you want will make you go away at no significant cost to me. If I'm a peasant, a turnip economy item might be the difference between going hungry tonight or not, it's going to take more than a minute to make me give it up (unless I am very easily persuaded).

[PhoneLobster]

I think that limiting what social interactions can do by how long the target is willing to listen is probably the answer.

So several things.

1) That's going to require elaborate formal pre-negotiation negotiations. And if you don't do that then it fails to function period. Because the players involved essentially have total arbitrary veto as to whether anything may ever be attempted on anyone ever. (spoiler, answer is "no").

2) Your list is bat shit stupid. To some extent that is going to happen because the arbitrary cut off points are always going to do that, but you made it spectacularly worse than it could be. Seriously? Several hours to convince someone you are an authority figure? That's so far away from fantasy adventure source material of bluffing your way into places with the pretense of authority that it's fucking stupid and players will call you an asshole for putting those sorts of things behind "many hours of voluntarily receptive and attentive guards"

3) Your entire premise is to make anything with a reasonable cost utterly useless. That is just a giant sign telling players to fuck back off to a part of the game where there aren't stupidly gigantic time costs for actions that actually pay off with things people care about.

4) This interacts really poorly with level based systems and mechanics. Potentially the worthless shit you are prepared to patronize your players with in return for actions on a time scale they might actually attempt MIGHT be useful enough at low levels to see social mechanics actually used. But your entire fucking social system will drop off the bottom of the "level appropriate rewards" radar INCREDIBLY quickly. By late game social mechanics just don't happen because there is nothing they do worth your time once you could be off killing armies and destroying continents faster instead.

Social mechanics require costs and risks, but those have to be in line with rewards of a level appropriate nature. Now all of that can balance out very nicely just using the standard fucking level for power/level of opponent for reward typs scheme that the rest of the system runs on. But for some fucking reason people consistently throw the most rational and directly intuitive answer out the window time and again to pull, well, stupid shit where a level 0 apprentice witch can alter just about anyone's memory permanently if you just chat with him a few hours and a level 100 God King cannot get so much as a date with a level 1 bar wench without begging her for at least an hour.

[Starmaker]

Disclaimer: I'm not Frank.

Super Dickery.

Not sure I'm clear? Because superman can beat people up, it is hard to convince him not to because (Reasons)?

Some diplomancy systems have this flaw where high-level people are just hard to persuade fullstop. So when Lois Lane offers Supes a blowjob, he replies with "NO! SUCK A DICK!" Social rank doesn't fix that (and in fact introduces more problems).

No soup for Superman.

Not sure how this is bad? Superman helps dudes all the time. If you give him free soup he continues helping you. If you don't give him free soup he still helps you just as much. This is because superman likes helping dudes.

That's exactly the problem. A diplomancy system is supposed to simulate real social reactions. People IRL are often nice to others without expecting future reciprocity, because it makes them feel good about themselves for reasons. If characters' simulated feeeeeeelings end up reflecting raw mathematical expected utility in $$, other simulated NPCs end up being dicks to Supes. While in real life, people are generally nice to someone who helps their kitten's grandmother off a tree just because.

Die for the Superman.

That again sounds like a desirable outcome for high level characters.

It's not how people work. Suppose Zuck comes up to you and says, "I'll spend a billion to save these 100 dying kids and set them up for life if you zuck my zuck".

I'll trade you a paper airplane.

This seems like it would fall into the "You get points for doing something someone wants for them" clause of the hypothetical rules. Superman presumably doesn't want a carrot.

Suppose you're Superman, you want a carrot, and you go to the farmer's market. Haggling is covered by diplomancy. So a Friday afternoon at the market goes like, "Oh hi Jack, it's 10 cp for ten carrots. Oh hi Jill, my, you're looking beautiful today, it's 7 cp for ten carrots. Oh hi, Sir Tehpwnzor McAwesome, it's the neighboring kingdom for a carrot, and I'll throw in a potato if you kill the dragon too."

[Grek]

I take issue with the "grift someone out of X" options. If I'm a wish economy demi-god, you can get me to give up a turnip economy item with a one-round action just by being sufficiently irritating in the hopes that giving you what you want will make you go away at no significant cost to me. If I'm a peasant, a turnip economy item might be the difference between going hungry tonight or not, it's going to take more than a minute to make me give it up (unless I am very easily persuaded).

This is a legit complaint. Would making it directly tied to the economy the griftee deals with work? ie. 1 hour for the economy you're in, 1 minute for the economy one step below you, 1 round for 2 steps?

1) That's going to require elaborate formal pre-negotiation negotiations. And if you don't do that then it fails to function period. Because the players involved essentially have total arbitrary veto as to whether anything may ever be attempted on anyone ever. (spoiler, answer is "no").

There's no pre-negotiations. There's "Diplomancer starts talking about X." and then the NPC can either listen, try to mentally resist, or leave. It's no more pre-negotiations than a spellcaster casting a spell with a casting time of "one minute" and NPCs having the option to run before it goes off.

2) Your list is bat shit stupid. To some extent that is going to happen because the arbitrary cut off points are always going to do that, but you made it spectacularly worse than it could be. Seriously? Several hours to convince someone you are an authority figure? That's so far away from fantasy adventure source material of bluffing your way into places with the pretense of authority that it's fucking stupid and players will call you an asshole for putting those sorts of things behind "many hours of voluntarily receptive and attentive guards"

Bluffing the guards to let you into somewhere is handled with a lie. The authority figure one is to convince someone that you should be their king/pope/insert leader of choice here. It's easier to convince someone that you are King Draxal in disguise than it is to convince them that you should replace King Draxal as king.

And now for the disingenuous bullshit section:

Social mechanics require costs and risks, but those have to be in line with rewards of a level appropriate nature. Now all of that can balance out very nicely just using the standard fucking level for power/level of opponent for reward typs scheme that the rest of the system runs on. But for some fucking reason people consistently throw the most rational and directly intuitive answer out the window time and again to pull, well, stupid shit where a level 0 apprentice witch can alter just about anyone's memory permanently if you just chat with him a few hours and a level 100 God King cannot get so much as a date with a level 1 bar wench without begging her for at least an hour.

Of course the level 0 apprentice can't use alter memory. Nobody ever said that these are all the abilities that you get across all levels as a diplomancer, or that you get all of these powers immediately after a one time investment. That would be stupid and you are stupid for suggesting it. Likewise, the level 100 God King who wants a date with a level one bar wench can either go "Guards! Seize her and have her brought to my bedchambers!" or he can woo her personally which takes some time but will always work because he's 100 levels higher.

[PhoneLobster]

Nobody ever said that these are all the abilities that you get...

Oh so you just intend to completely (but secretly) undermine the entire premise of your presented "solution". Yep. That sounds workable.

And PS, fuck you, "pretend to be an authority figure" is a totally iconic "lie to get past guards", if not THE go to lie to get past guards.

And double PS, yes it IS fucking prenegotiations. Because if there are no mechanics or negotiations to determine (and enforce) available voluntary listening time (like say Frank's whole elaborate prenegotiation "reaction roll" concept) then it is just an utterly arbitrary opportunity for any player or GM to just say "Nope, doesn't work, you don't even get an attempt" any and every time they even suspect they might care about the outcome. Which pretty much definitionally places it into the realm of "mechanics that literally handle things we don't care about".

[virgil]

And PS, fuck you, "pretend to be an authority figure" is a totally iconic "lie to get past guards", if not THE go to lie to get past guards.

Did anyone say you couldn't pretend to be an authority figure? No.

[Grek]

Oh so you just intend to completely (but secretly) undermine the entire premise of your presented "solution". Yep. That sounds workable.

It's not a solution. I didn't present any rules and never pretended to. It was a question: "Does these abilities seem appropriate for a mid-level diplomancer to have?"

And PS, fuck you, "pretend to be an authority figure" is a totally iconic "lie to get past guards", if not THE go to lie to get past guards.

The ability isn't "pretend to be an authority figure" or "convincingly lie and say you're an authority figure" it's "Convince someone that you're an authority figure. " with an implied "and do so with pure charisma, not trickery".

And double PS, yes it IS fucking prenegotiations. Because if there are no mechanics or negotiations to determine (and enforce) available voluntary listening time (like say Frank's whole elaborate prenegotiation "reaction roll" concept) then it is just an utterly arbitrary opportunity for any player or GM to just say "Nope, doesn't work, you don't even get an attempt" any and every time they even suspect they might care about the outcome. Which pretty much definitionally places it into the realm of "mechanics that literally handle things we don't care about".

That is literally the entire point. The other party gets to stop listening at any time. The GM decides if an NPC stops listening and the player decides if your character stops listening and there's no mechanic telling either when they can or cannot do so, outside of overt magical powers which compel a person to listen even though they don't want to, or deafness which prevents a person from listening even if they'd like to. The only caveat is that if you do want to stop listening, you have to actually do so. You have to either walk away, or literally hold your hands over your ears and sing loudly "Lalalalalala, can't hear your mind controlling silver tongue, lalalalalalala."

[PhoneLobster]

It's not a solution.

Well we are in agreement about that then.

"Does these abilities seem appropriate for a mid-level diplomancer to have?"

Also an easy one "no". But seriously that was your go to mid level list. Wow.

The ability isn't "pretend to be an authority figure" or "convincingly lie and say you're an authority figure" it's "Convince someone that you're an authority figure. " with an implied "and do so with pure charisma, not trickery".

A) That is not remotely implied.
B) It isn't any different
C) Who Cares
D) Stop making such stupid semantics arguments. All you are doing is opening your dumb list up to the accusation that the categories are vague, meaningless and worth less than nothing. No one but fucking you is going to respond to the rogue pretending he is someone important to get let into the armory and NOT immediately go to the category you labelled as "Convince Someone You Are An Authority Figure" and then pull a major WTF as to why you put it in the several hour category for a mid level diplomancer no less. Trying to argue pretending you are an authority figure ISN'T pretending you are an authority figure is a stupid waste of time that does little other than discredit your entire idea.

That is literally the entire point. The other party gets to stop listening at any time.

Then you are creating a system that is "opt in (for no reason) to potentially be defeated and lose X that you care about".

The faffing about with "time costs" is a pile of bullshit cover for the fact that at it's root is simply an entire sub system that players and GMs have no reason to ever submit to and the option to simply ignore.

We've seen people suggest the "opt in for defeat for no reason" social mechanic before. It sucked then and it sucks now.

[Mask_De_H]

Stabbing a dude because he's talking to you and stabbing a dude because he's about to cast a harmful spell are very different things. You shouldn't want your social interaction minigame to default to face stabbing anyway. There should be ways to tell that you're being manipulated and ways to tell what kind of spell is going off so you aren't incentivized to waste anyone who steps to you funny. If you know something is a threat then you can avoid it, but there should be a way to realize when something is or isn't a threat.

The answer to DSM's paranoia about mortgage bankers is foreknowledge, not straight avoidance. If you have to interact with a mortgage banker, you come prepared. You don't just stick your head in the sand because that defeats the entire point of interaction. Now if this mortgage banker can warp minds, then if you're designing a game you have to give people defenses for that. If non-interaction or violent interaction are the only choices in your world, then why the fuck do you even have a social system? How do you have social order when diplomancy doesn't have tells like magic would? Why would you have living enchanters?

[Grek]

It's not opt in you twat. It's opt out. Literally the opposite of what you said. And opting out means leaving the room or putting wax in your ears or making the diplomancer shut up. There are obviously lots of situations where a character is unwilling or unable to do one of those things and therefore can be diplomatized.

[PhoneLobster]

It's not opt in you twat. It's opt out.

Once again a meaningless semantics argument.

I call it "Opt in for potential defeat!" and YOU call it "Opt out for immunity to defeat!" You know what. It's fucking the same. Could you POSSIBLY manage to do something other than to meaninglessly redefine terminology in ways that ultimately only undermine your credibility.

And opting out means leaving the room or putting wax in your ears or making the diplomancer shut up.

So then in your clumsy attempt to combat the "if he opens his mouth I will sword him!" critique you decide to create a system that flat out formalizes "opt out by forcibly stop all talking OR you opt in for your mind to be influenced" as the only two available options.

You've effectively suggested just implementing the literal thing people are saying is bad as a potential solution to the same thing they are saying is bad.

You have not only taken a strawman and made it reality, you've actually done it while thinking you were suggesting a solution to said strawman. This might just be the first time I've seen that. No wait... still impressive though.

There are obviously lots of situations where a character is unwilling or unable to do one of those things and therefore can be diplomatized.

Such as, if not by far predominantly, when they are physically helpless hey?

Now people have accused my mechanics of being a rape simulation because they don't penalize talking to people and fighting them at the same time enough even after making it decidedly sub optimal.

How do you think they will respond to a system where the only way you can assure a target will stand still and listen to your "opt out" mind control for long enough for it to work major effects on them is to physically beat them up so you can physically restrain them first?

[DSMatticus]

There should be ways to tell that you're being manipulated and ways to tell what kind of spell is going off so you aren't incentivized to waste anyone who steps to you funny. If you know something is a threat then you can avoid it, but there should be a way to realize when something is or isn't a threat.

I don't think it's a problem that commoners can't tell what spell a wizard is casting. If a wizard is walking around casting spells on strangers unannounced, that can just be alarming. If for some reason you want to cast spells on a stranger, you can talk to them first about what you want to do, and some people will trust you and some won't. It's really not that big a deal.

The diplomancer's problem is that 1) talking is a really important part of day-to-day functioning, and 2) the diplomancer can't ask for your permission before talking to you, because he's already talking to you to ask for permission. There are unique problems with a diplomancer's silver tongue being that powerful that don't apply to wizard's spells, and those problems lead to rather silly consequences (like panicking every time a diplomancer asks you for directions).

[Mask_De_H]

That's what's having a shock proof shit detector is for, so if they do start diplomancing you can recognize it, but if the interaction is benign, you don't have to freak out. If diplomancy has a problem with interaction, create something that can interact with it.