Social Combat

[MGuy]

Reaction Rolls happen automatically upon meeting with someone and is a thing that just happens and isn't something a players selects to have happen. It isn't "initiated" in any way but by default whenever the PCs exist around something whether or not the players know it exists, have done something to create an opinion, etc.

That's... just... stupid. So a player can't elect to encounter the Captain of the Guard while he's having dinner with his family or after the Captain of the Guard celebrated his promotion at the tavern or after he has a grueling day at work? Contrariwise, a drow in a city full of dwarves can't elect to just sneak in the shadows or stay in the inn room or only go when accompanied by the great dwarven hero?

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying a random roll shouldn't be what determines that.

The timing of a reaction roll is just as important as how you present yourself when one goes off. In fact they're exactly the same fucking thing. And it is totally something players have a degree of control over.

How? As far as it has been presented Reaction Rolls trigger when the PCs are spotted.

If that's the case then why roll anything since how the NPCs feel should just be set right as they find out you exist?

Don't be an idiot. An NPC can catch sight of you while you're returning from a reward ceremony or whether you're sneaking out of the bedroom window of the tax collector or after you've put on your Hercules disguise. These have plausibly different outcomes on how a NPC will respond to you and you should certainly roll in these scenarios.

Why would you need to roll the reaction? If you're doing something the NPC doesn't agree with then they'll treat you worse depending on the severity of your offense. The reverse is also true. Why randomize it?

If you're wearing the right disguise to walk by the rest of the guards then Disguise should have taken care of it. Why the fuck are you needing to make a Reaction Roll for that?

Because 'right disguise' is a vague and video-game term. If your disguise is a generic no-name guard then you might get drafted into drill or guard duty while sneaking through the courtyard -- which will get a different reaction than if your disguise was the scary royal vizier storming through. Similarly, if your disguise fails you might get a different reaction depending on whether you were disguising yourself as a guard or the scary royal vizier.

If you mean "vague" as in there could be different disguises for different situations and I didn't describe a particular uniform then I'd have to say you're just being stupid because logically if you know what you need to disguise yourself as, what you need to put on, etc then what you need is not so vague any more. I just didn't mention a specific outfit cause there was no need.

What about the situation where you're being ambushed from the shadows by people you don't know exist and have no way to prepare for?

That's precisely the situation in which 3E D&D's paradigm of diplomacy fails flat on its ass and reaction rolls shine at. Without a reaction roll, the DM has to magic tea party whether the bandits attack you even if you look huge and burly yet are only carrying sackcloth.

Why do I care if the GM MTPs bandits that attack me? He MTPed them into existing in the first place. He MTPed them being bandits. What's more the opposite is also true. Nothing is stopping PCs from doing whatever they want socially so I really don't give a damn if there is some minor villain the GM through at me that is already hostile no more than I care if the GM throws something at me that I can't negotiate with at all. The way you put it I should get pissed off whenever I fight a golem.

Why would there be a reaction roll for walking into a bar and ordering a drink?

Because a hero or a villain walking into a bar while the entire place hushes up and the bartender meekly goes to serve him a drink before they even do anything is a total staple of the genre. Or getting hostile looks from everyone and being told that they don't serve his kind.

Umm if he's famous/infamous I'd imagine that he did something to get that kind of reaction. Having a roll to randomly determine that the populace likes/dislikes you doesn't stop or hinder or even CHANGE what the GM decides to MTP into the situation.

If you're obviously from a race, creed, nationality, species, whatever that the bartender doesn't like why would you need to randomize his reaction?

Why is there a chance that he randomly doesn't act like a racist prick? Especially if the player has no fore knowledge as to his intent, disposition?

Because there are some bartenders who will, despite you being a filthy drow, serve you a drink because you're Drizz't and some who don't give a damn and will pull out a crossbow on you. And there are some bartenders who waffle between the two positions and may react to you differently depending on how much money they've made in the last two months. And there's no way to determine which way the bartender will react except by DM fiat.

Drizzt did something to earn the reputation. He may be a Drow (putting him down on the list of shit the bartender likes) but he also saved his daughter) putting him higher) so that's motherfucking making the effort to accomplish tasks that have in game effects. No reason that the GM can't say "Well you've done something for him so that makes him "friendly" towards you until you muck it up." If you REALLY want fame/infamy to do something that has numbers slapped on to it then make a Reputation system. Drizzt has high rep at the town he saved so everyone treats him better. No need for a fucking Reaction Roll, case closed.

[MGuy]

I think it's pretty fucking neurotic and pathetic that certain people on TGD can only interact with a roleplaying game if they have checkboxes and power cards explicitly instantiating the activity. And not even for non-obvious things like poking at traps with a 10-foot pole, I mean for basic fucking shit like 'an NPC will view you less favorably if you show up at 3:00 AM in their bedroom covered in gore'.

Video games: they're fun, but they rot your brains, kids.

Wow that's a very dim way of viewing what I've been talking about. I just like how you don't realize that having that shit randomly rolled via a system where you accrue bonuses to make people look at you more favorably can produce a situation just like the one you described except that it would be backed by the rules. I guess you really have to learn to accept that people like you exist Lago.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not talking about something as as extreme as a guy shooting someone because they don't like the cut of their jib. In fact I would want to avoid that kind of blatant motherfuckery.

If you think that a creature attacking you on sight because they don't like how you look is the DM fucking with you and should thus not be allowed, then I posit that Dungeons and Dragons is not for you and you should play another game.

I also don't have anything against someone dressing up so that the target's disposition starts off an octave or two higher because of it.

Then what the hell is your problem with reaction rolls? Reaction rolls do this and much more.

[MGuy]

I'm not talking about something as as extreme as a guy shooting someone because they don't like the cut of their jib. In fact I would want to avoid that kind of blatant motherfuckery.

If you think that a creature attacking you on sight because they don't like how you look is the DM fucking with you and should thus not be allowed, then I posit that Dungeons and Dragons is not for you and you should play another game.

I also don't have anything against someone dressing up so that the target's disposition starts off an octave or two higher because of it.

Then what the hell is your problem with reaction rolls? Reaction rolls do this and much more.

For the first part keep in mind we're talking about a bartender. A man who runs a business quite possibly in a civilized way. So him randomly trying to shoot you in the face because your skin is the wrong color is indeed not the kind of game I usually play whenever I sit at a game of DnD. For someone who wanted to push enforced pacifism in the game I'm surprised that you think games should go like that.

Second My problem is as stated. If your disguise roll works then that should be it. Why would I also need my diplomacy stat or any other stat or even any other roll to cover what my disguise check should have gotten me?

[hogarth]

Why would you need to roll the reaction? If you're doing something the NPC doesn't agree with then they'll treat you worse depending on the severity of your offense. The reverse is also true. Why randomize it?

This is the crux of why reaction rolls are stupid. All things being equal, reactions really don't vary that much from one occasion to the next.

Frank is claiming that if he walks into a room full of 100 indistinguishable people (clones, people dressed in identical gorilla suits, whatever), then before anyone on either side has a chance to do anything:

• He'll love 5 of them.
• He'll hate 5 of them.
• He'll like 20 of them.
• He'll dislike 20 of them.
• He'll be indifferent to 50 of them.

(Percentages subject to change, of course.) That's so foreign to human experience that words fail me.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I must point out that the Mexican Standoff, in which both parties roll initiative and then fucking talk with cocked guns pointed at each other is common enough in both fiction and reality that it's something that should be emulatable using any diplomacy rules.

This would be done in a reaction system by giving NPC a bonus to the reaction roll if they are cowed by a show of strength (like bandits) or a penalty if they don't react kindly to weapons being drawn on them (like the police officers). The bandits may decide that they can take you on anyway while the police officers may end up shooting because they get twitchy when criminals wave weapons.

A tense Mexican standoff is not usually done by someone negotiating a ceasefire in the middle of a fight. It happens, sure, but I'd say that most of them don't even get to the shooting phase.

[MGuy]

I must point out that the Mexican Standoff, in which both parties roll initiative and then fucking talk with cocked guns pointed at each other is common enough in both fiction and reality that it's something that should be emulatable using any diplomacy rules.

This would be done in a reaction system by giving NPC a bonus to the reaction roll if they are cowed by a show of strength (like bandits) or a penalty if they don't react kindly to weapons being drawn on them (like the police officers). The bandits may decide that they can take you on anyway while the police officers may end up shooting because they get twitchy when criminals wave weapons.

A tense Mexican standoff is not usually done by someone negotiating a ceasefire in the middle of a fight. It happens, sure, but I'd say that most of them don't even get to the shooting phase.

You know what this sounds like? Scaring them sounds like Intimidation! So I'd suppose an intimidation check should be made. But that's not a reaction roll. A penalty to interacting with police officers with your weapons drawn? Sounds like something that would penalize your possible Diplomacy roll. But that's not reaction either. If you're already standing there and NOT shooting each other why wouldn't the relevant social checks be being made? By your reaction system the reaction rolls were already made so no one has had a chance to do anything to effect the reaction between the two parties since reaction rolls would have been made as soon as the two parties perceived each other (before weapons were drawn).

[Lago PARANOIA]

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying a random roll shouldn't be what determines that.

Why would you need to roll the reaction? If you're doing something the NPC doesn't agree with then they'll treat you worse depending on the severity of your offense. The reverse is also true. Why randomize it?

In a roleplaying game, there are only three ways to determine something not explicitly covered in the rules.

[*] DM fiat.
[*] Player fiat.
[*] Randomness.

Seriously, that's it. You can combine those activities, but those are your choices. If you say that randomness shouldn't be a determining factor, then what should be? If you say that it's a disguise check or a will save, that's still using randomness! You're just kicking it back to another level.

If you say that something not in the rules shouldn't be determined by randomness, then by simple logic you want player fiat or DM fiat.

Frank is claiming that if he walks into a room full of 100 indistinguishable people (clones, people dressed in identical gorilla suits, whatever), then before anyone on either side has a chance to do anything:
He'll love 5 of them.
He'll hate 5 of them.
He'll like 20 of them.
He'll dislike 20 of them.
He'll be indifferent to 50 of them.

Why did you construct the probability curve like this, hogarth? Aside from the fact that it's completely stupid to say that a particular probability result with conform to an expected result, Why can't it be him hating all 100 of them because he has a violent aversion to people in gorilla suits? Or why can't it be him being indifferent to 80 of the people and liking 20 because he's a friendly guy? Or whatever the fuck?

(Percentages subject to change, of course.)

Nice escape hatch, hogarth. Changing the percentages only potentially completely changes around the meaning of the argument depending on the probability curve. No big deal.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why do I care if the GM MTPs bandits that attack me?

What do you mean why should I care?! That's the whole point of having a diplomacy system in the first fucking place!

So I'd suppose an intimidation check should be made.

So what if the police officer's initiative comes up before the bandit's? How would a bandit even make an intimidation check to determine whether it spooks the police officer into dropping their weapon or shooting him out of being threatened or just hesitating? Passive intimidation modifiers?

[Foxwarrior]

Well, talking is a free action, Lago PARANOIA. Intimidation can be a type of talking yes?

Why do I care if the GM MTPs bandits that attack me?

What do you mean why should I care?! That's the whole point of having a diplomacy system in the first fucking place!

What he probably means to say is that he likes resolving this reaction stuff with DM fiat, because the fact that the encounter exists at all is already DM fiat anyways.


Presumably, Hogarth constructed the probability curve like he did because it gave a ridiculous result. Changing it to 80/20 is still pretty odd, so it's covered by "(Percentages subject to change, of course.)" With 100/0, then it's not much of a probability curve and rolling for it was pointless.

[Foxwarrior]

And you're wrong, Lago. Randomness, GM Fiat, and Player Fiat are not the only options: there's also State Machine. If you keep track of what people ate for breakfast, what sort of friends they hung out with yesterday, and so on, then whether they decide to shoot you or chat peacefully can be determined entirely nonrandomly, as an obvious consequence of prior events. And by "obvious" I mean "only obvious to the entity that's keeping track of these stupid things".

Edit: Oops, it really does boil down to those three things in the end. Someone had to put that breakfast there.

[quanta]

Are you being intentionally retarded Lago? The in-game diplomat does not know there is an assassin anywhere near him. (...) He doesn't make his demands known to the assassin because he doesn't spend his whole fucking day yelling out his parley demands on the off chance someone he does not even know exists happens to be near him and happens to be there to kill him.

Yes, quanta, if you change the bounds of my example to something that's completely different you can infer new arguments from it and then argue against the phantoms in your peabrain.

I don't know why you're so weirdly obsessed with the 'talking to shadows' thing; my theory is that your brain has been turned to parochial mush by 3E D&D and can't imagine any other diplomacy paradigm that isn't at its core I make a diplomacy check at it!!.

I have to admit, your trolling in this thread is brilliant Lago. I mean lets look at the example you gave.

Is the Diplomat supposed to have a decent chance of persuading the assassin not to shoot without knowing the assassin is there?

Believe it or not, the answer to this question is 'yes'. An unarmed diplomat (that doesn't quite look like the assassin's target) talking to the shadows to get the intruder to show himself should have a greater chance of not getting shot than a diplomat wielding a bloody axe and bragging to the shadows that he's going to relax after this confrontation by slaying the assassin's kids.

So you inverted the scenario and afterwards complain someone is asking the original question again. I laughed, but isn't your trolling becoming too obvious like this?

Yeah, this is pretty much the point at which I decided Lago was either trolling or so fucking retarded that it's not even comprehensible. And of course, in his response he doubles down on his stupid.

He suggests that when certain people go about their daily lives they continuously somehow magically present themselves in a way that says "talk to me, please don't kill me!" just in case there may or may not be assassins somewhere nearby that are there to kill them and that they are so good at this that trained killers would decide to not complete their mission. Foxwarrior's joke about Lago wanting a "cute and innocent" roll actually being what Lago wanted blew my mind.

And as for people who say "Diplomacy has to work to stop combat because D&D is about murder hobos!" Fuck you, playing D&D as a murder hobos game is not the only way to play D&D. If we're discussing totally different versions of diplomacy or D&D, then I can damn well make my own nebulous assumptions about D&D being a game about heroic characters in a fantasy land with basically modern morals who have actual fucking allies and neutral parties to deal with. Some D&D books sure as hell act like that's something you're supposed to be able to do, so I don't even think I'm coming from way out of left field here.

EDIT: And to clarify again, I don't think have a reaction roll or diplomacy that can work on super-hostile people is bad. I just don't think it's the one true way that things must be handled.

DOUBLE EDIT:

Conan the Barbarian will get a better reaction out of Thog than Tenderfoot Fluffikins

Thog loves puppies Lago. If tenderfoot fluffikins is a puppy, then you're just wrong.

[hyzmarca]

Having diplomacy affect reaction rolls can make some sense, if you treat diplomacy is a wide breadth of cultural knowledge useful in diplomatic actions in addition to basic interpersonal skills (which it is in reality).

For example, if you know that you're going through Gorgofantian territory, and you know that it's a sign of peaceful respect in Gorgofantian culture to rub displacer beast dung on your nose, then the entire party can go around with monster poop on their faces and this will affect the reaction rolls of whomever they come across, presumably in a positive manner.

Or if you're a diplomat who regularly negotiates with the Guild of Assassins (because there's only ever one) you'll know a lot about Guild practices and will be able to dress in a manner that says "Don't fuck with this guy, he's protected". This possible involves wearing the platinum pin of Plasurnium, which the Guild of Assassins only gives to its most trusted contacts, on your lapel at all times.

A character with a high diplomacy skill will, presumably, know people and have personal contacts practically everywhere. Knowing people and having a wide range of personal contacts is part of what being a diplomat is all about.

At some point, having a +50 diplomacy does mean that you have Lloth on Speed Dial and yes she will take your calls, so when you go into Menzowhateveristan, they'll be expecting you.

[quanta]

Hell, I've changed my mind, and I'll even give the Lago the benefit of the doubt. If he'll say that even if JFK was the suavest motherfucker ever (protip, he pretty much was), that Lee Harvey Oswald being far away, hidden, and having come there to fucking kill JFK just means there were so many modifiers in Oswald's favor that the only possible result of the reaction roll (unless you want the RNG to go over like 9,000 fucking numbers or something; I'll accept a .01% chance Oswald found JFK so sexy Oswald just decided to go home) was "Oswald takes the shot without any negative modifiers related to social encounter stuff", then I'll stop saying mean things about him in this thread.

Because having reaction rolls or whatever is defensible as long as you are getting sensible results out of it.

[Foxwarrior]

There's probably some potential benefit in having a probability scheme that gets less random as you go along. Rolling a die is supposed to simulate all of the little finicky circumstances and details that were too much work to keep track of in a game with limited available processing power, right? But once you've rolled the first time, most of the relevant minor details should be essentially set in stone, and only some things should still vary.

For example: some Elves walk into a bar, and the arbitrary bartender NPC rolls a 1 for Reaction (on a d20). This could indicate that the bartender is racist against elves, had rotten eggs for breakfast, was robbed by muscular elven barbarians yesterday, and was in the middle of a train of thought about how bad pointy things like knives and elven ears are. If more elves come in later that day, all of those details other than the last one are the same, so the Bartender's Reaction should be pretty close to 1, but not necessarily exactly 1. If more elves come in some other day, only the first detail is the same, so the Bartender's Reaction should potentially be pretty high, but not necessarily be capable of being a 20.

Another example: Frank walks into a room, and evaluates 100 people in identical gorilla suits individually. He rolls a 12 for Reaction for the first one, which hints that he doesn't have a strong opinion about people in gorilla suits. However, it takes time to evaluate all these people, so his decisions about some gorilla suits will come to him at different stages of his thought processes, meaning that he rates some people 10 and some 14. They're still all essentially the same, though, so he doesn't rate any 1 or 20.

Now if only keeping track of this wasn't really difficult. But wait! If you forget what sort of value it should be, then circumstances have probably changed, so everything works perfectly.

[PhoneLobster]

Both the last two posts are losing track of the simple fact that if you have to use excisve numbers of modifiers and roll for 0.001% chances or roll weird little clustered distributions your reaction system is a big fat pile of twaddle even if it DOES miraculously generate "sensible" results (which it still won't).

Because a reaction system that generates sensible results is no better than arbitrary GM fiat generated reactions. But if DOES apparently involve rolling a 100,000 sided dice, applying enough modifiers to accurately simulate Lee Harvy Oswald and elaborate accounting for clustered distributions of results for some sorts of similar contexts within limited specific time frames.

All cost. No benefit. With elaborate randomised reaction mechanics we don't need a defense of how it CAN be almost as good as just not doing it, we need an explanation of how the hell it is BETTER than just not doing it.

[jadagul]

Foxwarrior: this is just spitballing, but I think there are ways to help out with that. In the bartender example, presumably the bartender is just a random bartender and the MC hasn't put a lot of effort into characterizing him before the reaction roll. But after the 1 comes up, the MC gets to spin a story, if he wants to, about why the bartender reacted that poorly. And this story helps create a characterization of the bartender, and the next time a bunch of elves walk in the MC looks at his notes and says, "Oh, Joe the Bartender is spectacularly racist against elves. That's worth a -5 on his reaction roll." Or whatever. And that helps keep some consistency in reactions. It leads to some of its own weirdnesses (the better-characterized the NPC is prior to the encounter, the more the reaction roll encompasses "what he ate for breakfast" and the less it describes "oops, guess this guy really likes orcs", for instance), but it helps keep versimilitude.

For the room full of gorilla suits--well, if you walk into a room with 100 people who are all acting exactly the same, there's really probably only one reaction roll to them. Hell, I don't think anyone thinks NPCs should be rolling a reaction roll for each individual PC, although I could come up with cases where that would make sense. So Frank walks into the room and sees 100 people in gorilla suits, and you roll a 12 and Frank is basically indifferent to all of them. And then one specific ape cosplayer steps out of the crowd, delivers a truly vile insult in Frank's native culture, and flashes the gang sign used by Frank's hated enemies, and Frank rolls for him specifically (with a large negative modifier), because this is the first time Frank has noticed him as an individual rather than "one of those primate furry dudes".

[hyzmarca]

All cost. No benefit. With elaborate randomised reaction mechanics we don't need a defense of how it CAN be almost as good as just not doing it, we need an explanation of how the hell it is BETTER than just not doing it.

Hypothetically, having a system does provide a benefit even if that system is effectively unusable. At the very least, it allows the GM to justify himself by rolling some dice behind a screen and pretending to look at them, which you don't get from pure MTP.

[Korwin]

All cost. No benefit. With elaborate randomised reaction mechanics we don't need a defense of how it CAN be almost as good as just not doing it, we need an explanation of how the hell it is BETTER than just not doing it.

Hypothetically, having a system does provide a benefit even if that system is effectively unusable. At the very least, it allows the GM to justify himself by rolling some dice behind a screen and pretending to look at them, which you don't get from pure MTP.

What? An GM can not lie in MTP?

[hyzmarca]

All cost. No benefit. With elaborate randomised reaction mechanics we don't need a defense of how it CAN be almost as good as just not doing it, we need an explanation of how the hell it is BETTER than just not doing it.

Hypothetically, having a system does provide a benefit even if that system is effectively unusable. At the very least, it allows the GM to justify himself by rolling some dice behind a screen and pretending to look at them, which you don't get from pure MTP.

What? An GM can not lie in MTP?

No, a GM cannot lie in pure MTP. Well, he can lie, but that lie won't be convincing. MTP presumes, by default, that everything is pulled out of the GMs ass, and has no other resolution mechanism. The GM doesn't have so much as a fig-leaf to hide behind if the players call him out on a decision.

[Foxwarrior]

jadagul: I was thinking of having the mechanism be that you roll a d6, d12, or d20 depending on how much the situation resembles some other situation already rolled for, but your method probably gains more in simplicity than it potentially loses in DM impartiality.
Making the bonuses and penalties apply to reduce the range of possible rolled values means that a more fleshed-out character won't depend more on breakfast, and a roll of 1 for the first roll doesn't make a roll of -4 possible on the second.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, talking is a free action, Lago PARANOIA. Intimidation can be a type of talking yes?

What are they intimidating at? There's a difference from 'being generally intimidating' and 'I Intimidate It!' the latter of which quickly leads to absurd situations like a bandit suddenly jumping out of his hammock and baring his teeth because someone looked at the bandit through a telescope.

He suggests that when certain people go about their daily lives they continuously somehow magically present themselves in a way that says "talk to me, please don't kill me!" just in case there may or may not be assassins somewhere nearby that are there to kill them and that they are so good at this that trained killers would decide to not complete their mission.

You think that you're being clever with this half-assed snark, but yes, that is really how it is supposed to go. There's absolutely nothing magic about it except that you're an idiot who doesn't even realize that you're internalizing years of social conditioning. That's really how people behave in real life. If you're taking an aggressive posture, even if your ire isn't directed at someone in particular, fewer people want to talk to you and people are more likely to start a fight out of the blue.

If you go through a dungeon or the woods or through a city and you don't want someone to take offense and gank you, you should present an obsequious or at least an unintimidating stance. Because if someone does notice you before you notice them if you're taking an aggressive stance that increases your chance of getting a fight.

Who is more likely to initiate an unwanted combat encounter -- a cowboy with their guns drawn and skulking through the streets shifty-eyed and covered with blood, or a cowboy with their guns holstered and smoking a cigar while strolling down the street?

Foxwarrior's joke about Lago wanting a "cute and innocent" roll actually being what Lago wanted blew my mind.

If you weren't aching so much to drop a sicknasty you would have noticed that I said that the basic idea with some modifications is what I had in mind, not his flippant snark. Because calling it 'cute and innocent' rather than something more serious encourages idiots -- such as yourself -- to derp out and ignore everything else about the conversation.

Thog loves puppies Lago. If tenderfoot fluffikins is a puppy, then you're just wrong.

There's something to be said about someone who completely ignores a counter-example in order to push their strawman unhindered. I'm thinking something much nastier than 'idiot'.

Hell, I've changed my mind, and I'll even give the Lago the benefit of the doubt. If he'll say that even if JFK was the suavest motherfucker ever (protip, he pretty much was), that Lee Harvey Oswald being far away, hidden, and having come there to fucking kill JFK just means there were so many modifiers in Oswald's favor that the only possible result of the reaction roll (unless you want the RNG to go over like 9,000 fucking numbers or something; I'll accept a .01% chance Oswald found JFK so sexy Oswald just decided to go home) was "Oswald takes the shot without any negative modifiers related to social encounter stuff", then I'll stop saying mean things about him in this thread.

If you weren't so obsessed with finding pathetic zingers you would have seen that I had said as much on the same goddamn page.

The assassin makes the reaction roll against Ms. Diplomat when he notices her. What happens then is up in the air. If Ms. Diplomat looked like his secret wizard school crush and was wearing a hot outfit and was patting a small child on the head, the assassin might decide to delay the attack or even cancel it altogether. Alternatively, he might just be a cold or sadistic bastard who is targeting her for fanatically-held religious reasons; so even if Ms. Diplomat stacks as many positive-negotiating modifiers as she can bother it's not going to affect his decision to kill her.

Good Lord.

[Username17]

I think it's pretty fucking neurotic and pathetic that certain people on TGD can only interact with a roleplaying game if they have checkboxes and power cards explicitly instantiating the activity. And not even for non-obvious things like poking at traps with a 10-foot pole, I mean for basic fucking shit like 'an NPC will view you less favorably if you show up at 3:00 AM in their bedroom covered in gore'.

Video games: they're fun, but they rot your brains, kids.

Pretty much this. MGuy's full on embracement of Elennsarism is sadly typical of many people on this thread. He claims that we don't need or want a random chance to prevent combat from happening because we can have a random chance to prevent combat from happening. But it's totally different and OK, because the random chance in question is an ability that is modeled as an attack or saving throw. Because that's somehow different and more acceptable than rolling a die in any other context.

Aside from the absolute shit sandwich that is inherent in making such things an ability (meaning that the choice to go into the bar aggressively or peacefully does not exist for people who did not spend character points on an action card they can play during their bar entrance), I want to point out another piece of foolishness that I called on page one of this thread:

The problem with any sort of diplomatic "combat" system is that it completely fails to address the entirely likely situation where actual diplomacy might get every party what they want. When two groups meet by chance on a path in the woods, probably neither one wants to have a deadly altercation. Having one happen anyway is the result of failure to communicate that fact in a trustworthy manner by one or both members. In a diplomatic combat model, the other side is the enemy and combat is the loss state, thus making it considerably more likely that you'll have a sword duel if the other guy on the path is good at diplomacy. That's fucking stupid.

Since he is modeling his diplomatic combat prevention as an attack against Will, it is literally and specifically less effective against other diplomats. Meaning that if there's a diplomat in the bar, your combat prevention is more likely to fail and you're more likely to have a sword duel. Which as previously mentioned: is fucking stupid.

I must point out that the Mexican Standoff, in which both parties roll initiative and then fucking talk with cocked guns pointed at each other is common enough in both fiction and reality that it's something that should be emulatable using any diplomacy rules.

The typical Mexican Standoff involves people talking before rolling initiative. Two characters see each other and have ranged weapons, and then they stand there talking without taking combat actions.

-Username17

[MGuy]

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying a random roll shouldn't be what determines that.

Why would you need to roll the reaction? If you're doing something the NPC doesn't agree with then they'll treat you worse depending on the severity of your offense. The reverse is also true. Why randomize it?

In a roleplaying game, there are only three ways to determine something not explicitly covered in the rules.

[*] DM fiat.
[*] Player fiat.
[*] Randomness.

Seriously, that's it. You can combine those activities, but those are your choices. If you say that randomness shouldn't be a determining factor, then what should be? If you say that it's a disguise check or a will save, that's still using randomness! You're just kicking it back to another level.

If you say that something not in the rules shouldn't be determined by randomness, then by simple logic you want player fiat or DM fiat.

Ok I'll explain this slowly. Players see a situation that disguising themselves would benefit them in. There are a number of diplomatic situations that would involve this. Now in order to get any benefit from the disguise they ALREADY have to make a successful disguise check. Yes, there is a chance of failure but honestly the players decided to use it in the first place. It wasn't a random ass roll made by them existing in the same place with other people. The GM fiat is already out of the way. He made the guards.He decided what uniforms they wear. The Pc fiat is out of the way.They saw a problem decided how they wanted to approach it. There's absolutely no need for anything else.

[hyzmarca]

I must point out that the Mexican Standoff, in which both parties roll initiative and then fucking talk with cocked guns pointed at each other is common enough in both fiction and reality that it's something that should be emulatable using any diplomacy rules.

The typical Mexican Standoff involves people talking before rolling initiative. Two characters see each other and have ranged weapons, and then they stand there talking without taking combat actions.

-Username17

The typical Mexican standoff involves both parties rolling initiative, effectively tying, and both readying actions so that they can interrupt the other's shot, probably.

Actually, the classic Mexican Standoff involves three characters with readied actions such that whomever attacks first is guaranteed to die at the hands of the one who attacks last.

But either way it's a detente based upon readied actions. You don't see the other guy's gun and talk. You're literally pointing guns at each-other's faces at point-blank range such that missing is impossible and hoping that the other guy doesn't bet on your finger not twitching.