Actual Anatomy of Failed Design: Diplomacy

[MGuy]

I don't want "no rules" so please do not start shitting on everything I've posted by suggesting that's what I am saying. What's more in the post you're referring to I was responding to a suggestion that light rules will just make the MC be a dick. So i responded that if said MC is going to be a dick ANYWAY then having rules that don't actually stop him form being one isn't going to change that.

What I am suggesting that the rules be very abstract since there is no way to even get close to modeling how a proper conversation works, or to know whether or not the Couatl you ran into was the MC's plan or not. And that any rolls involving diplomacy require "actual action".

And no. I don't keep a tight rein on my game so instead. My prefered MCing strategy is to be as hands off on PC decisions as possible. I make the world I place my PCs in as detailed as I can, and play off the PC's back stories and allow them the choice of paying attention to their own or getting caught up in someone else's. I MC the way I want to be MC'd for where the players can and should take their destiny into their own hands. Sure they may run into the Couatl without me planning on them to. But any Couatl in my world has its place, has general behaviors that PCs can research, and is going to have a general way it reacts to humanoid mortals. I will play said Couatl based on what I know its motivations are and by whatever disposition it currently has. Should the PCs change that I will change its disposition I will change its actions accordingly.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This thread has been absolutely fascinating as a re-read. I am totally convinced that initial disposition rolls need to be mandatory and they also need to be jealously protected by the rules to prevent railroading.

That said, once you have that system up and you have the DCs at a sensible level, what more does the system need?

[RadiantPhoenix]

I agree.

Perhaps something like this should be explained in slightly larger font, right at the beginning of the chapter on skills. "If you're not rolling, cut out the wibbling and don't let your players take social skills; you're just deciding the result arbitrarily anyway."

[Username17]

This thread has been absolutely fascinating as a re-read. I am totally convinced that initial disposition rolls need to be mandatory and they also need to be jealously protected by the rules to prevent railroading.

That said, once you have that system up and you have the DCs at a sensible level, what more does the system need?

You still need some sort of informed choices to make. "I diplomacy at it" may get acceptable results, but it is not an acceptably engaging process.

-Username17

[MGuy]

I still can't fathom why someone would want to randomly generate all Initial Dispositions with a roll. I'm already against rolling something like that to begin with but to want to do it in all situations ever all the time is just stupid.

[Username17]

I still can't fathom why someone would want to randomly generate all Initial Dispositions with a roll. I'm already against rolling something like that to begin with but to want to do it in all situations ever all the time is just stupid.

Exactly the same reason you roll to see if an attack hits or misses. The players determine what their characters do, and they have various goals. The MC could simply determine the results of their choices without rolling dice, but that is completely fucking unfair.

The point of result is not "talking them out of attacking you", it's "not getting into a fight in the first place". That is the "result" that the players are trying to achieve by being "diplomatic". So if the MC simply determines whether the combat music starts without rolling dice, the MC has determined whether the player's intended result from their action is what they wanted or not without rolling dice. That robs the player of accomplishment if the MC rules in their favor, and it takes the players out and pisses all over them if the MC rules against them.

I cannot understand why, after months of people hammering you with exactly this point, that you continue to claim an inability to understand why people think your position is insulting.

-Username17

[hogarth]

I still can't fathom why someone would want to randomly generate all Initial Dispositions with a roll. I'm already against rolling something like that to begin with but to want to do it in all situations ever all the time is just stupid.

Re-reading this thread and the Winds of Fate thread makes me think that Frank's ideal D&D game engine would look like this:

[PhoneLobster]

I'm pretty confident you are right hogarth. Only perhaps underestimating the sheer extremity of it.

[MGuy]

I still can't fathom why someone would want to randomly generate all Initial Dispositions with a roll. I'm already against rolling something like that to begin with but to want to do it in all situations ever all the time is just stupid.

Exactly the same reason you roll to see if an attack hits or misses. The players determine what their characters do, and they have various goals. The MC could simply determine the results of their choices without rolling dice, but that is completely fucking unfair.

The point of result is not "talking them out of attacking you", it's "not getting into a fight in the first place". That is the "result" that the players are trying to achieve by being "diplomatic". So if the MC simply determines whether the combat music starts without rolling dice, the MC has determined whether the player's intended result from their action is what they wanted or not without rolling dice. That robs the player of accomplishment if the MC rules in their favor, and it takes the players out and pisses all over them if the MC rules against them.

I cannot understand why, after months of people hammering you with exactly this point, that you continue to claim an inability to understand why people think your position is insulting.

-Username17

I can't understand how you still completely missed everything I said. I am saying that the original/initial/beginning attitude/disposition/general behavior of a creature shouldn't be fucking random. I have not once in this entire thread suggested that characters not be able to act diplomatically. I now believe you are, even at this point, willfully ignoring my actual point for no reason.

What I'm saying is that the DM should be the one to decide how NPCs initial attitude works. Whether a random wolf starts off as aggressive, scared, or curious should be subject to DM fiat. If the lord baron is reasonable, greedy, or a traditionalist should be up to DM fiat. Should a given old witch in a forest start out as friendly, unfriendly, or neutral should be up to DM fiat. None of these things should be rolled nor should they be mandatory to roll even if you were just generating things.

Now if the PCs make an animal/diplomacy check to change whether a given "thing" is friendly, unfriendly, or neutral after they've encountered it (before they fight it) is something else entirely and specifically "not" what I'm even talking about. How it actually reacts to them after they've found it is something else entirely and explicitly "not" what I'm talking about. How is it that you could've read my posts, my examples, etc and continue to miss my actual point even now is beyond me.


Now if you're going to argue that without making it mandatory a DM can force player's into battle before they get the chance to do something diplomatic then that is a fault against the DM and really,making this shit random isn't going to stop a given DM from just deciding to make them fight X creature anyway. Wanting things to behave completely randomly every time the PCs step in the room with no regard to how the thing is supposed to act sounds stupid on paper and will play out the same way at the table. Any notion of the player's getting to roll something without performing any actions to make it happen is also an unwelcome idea.

Edit: And your beginning thing about it being like an Attack only reinforces my point. An attack is an action. You have to take an action to make an attack. I'm arguing that yes, the player has to declare an attack (diplomacy) action against a target that he reasonably is able to attack (diplomacize) and whether it "hits" or "misses" is then determined by the dice.

What you're suggesting, and what I'm against, is rolling up "the battle" before any declarations of intent are made. You're basically suggesting that players should be making undeclared attacks just by virtue of existing in the presence of a given target.

[RobbyPants]

I can't understand how you still completely missed everything I said. I am saying that the original/initial/beginning attitude/disposition/general behavior of a creature shouldn't be fucking random. I have not once in this entire thread suggested that characters not be able to act diplomatically. I now believe you are, even at this point, willfully ignoring my actual point for no reason.

What I'm saying is that the DM should be the one to decide how NPCs initial attitude works.

It's been a while since I've read this, but my understanding is MC can still choose some aspect of the creature's initial attitude (I don't remember what this was called. Disposition?), but this is one factor going into that initial roll.

[MGuy]

I can't understand how you still completely missed everything I said. I am saying that the original/initial/beginning attitude/disposition/general behavior of a creature shouldn't be fucking random. I have not once in this entire thread suggested that characters not be able to act diplomatically. I now believe you are, even at this point, willfully ignoring my actual point for no reason.

What I'm saying is that the DM should be the one to decide how NPCs initial attitude works.

It's been a while since I've read this, but my understanding is MC can still choose some aspect of the creature's initial attitude (I don't remember what this was called. Disposition?), but this is one factor going into that initial roll.

From what I recall Frank decided to call disposition attitude and wants there to be different reactions to be rolled based off of a given creature's attitude to decide their initial reaction to the PCs. This I'm completely ok with and it is also not what I was referring to when I originally mentioned my issue with what was being proposed.

[MGuy]

Double Post.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Username17]

I can't understand how you still completely missed everything I said.

Fuck. You.

For the last fucking time before you go on ignore: I haven't missed what you've said. What you've said is retarded. There is a difference. I understand your argument, I think your argument is retarded. Because you keep repeating it over and over again thinking it will somehow convince me when it hasn't for fucking months of real time means that you personally are retarded.

If you repeat an argument over and over again and people don't magically convert to your way of thinking, it is entirely possible that they aren't blind and deaf and that they haven't misunderstood you. It's entirely possible that they simply don't agree with you. It is thus entirely possible that either you or they are simply wrong. And you're going to have to either reevaluate your own position or make a more persuasive argument. Because after people have read it and responded to it at length five fucking times, chances are they understand your argument as stated pretty fucking well.

I am saying that the original/initial/beginning attitude/disposition/general behavior of a creature shouldn't be fucking random.

And we know that you're saying this. And you're wrong. Because if you accept this premise (as 3e's failed diplomacy system does), then the success or failure of the diplomancer is 100% decided by the MC without giving the player any possible chance for their schemes to succeed or fail.

An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions. But they can't be friendly or hostile to the player characters until the player characters and the NPC actually meet. Because being hostile to someone is a transitive fucking verb. It requires not only the NPC (who is hostile), but also the interaction of the PC (who the NPC is hostile to).

And if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Now if the PCs make an animal/diplomacy check to change whether a given "thing" is friendly, unfriendly, or neutral after they've encountered it (before they fight it) is something else entirely and specifically "not" what I'm even talking about.

No. See, that's exactly what you're talking about, because you are making the assumption that the NPC should be friendly or unfriendly to the player characters nonrandomly without having the players getting a say or a chance to prevent that course of events. And that is bullshit. The very premise of your statement, that the MC should have the diplomat succeed or fail to get a friendly reception without rolling dice is inherently wrong. So all your other statements about this problem are simply compoundedly wrong.

The first impression is like the first, and arguably most important attack of a battle. If you announce that combat music is starting that is like declaring that the diplomat just got a critical hit to the face. If you didn't roll any dice and simply determined that because of MC-whim, it's like you opened the battle by announcing that the players were surprised and they all took a critical hit to the face. It's the opposite of fair.

Stop acting like a wounded duck. I don't misunderstand your argument, I disagree with your argument. And I'm insulted by your constant refrain that my continued disagreement with you constitutes reading comprehension failure on my part. For the last fucking time: I understand your argument. Your argument is stupid. Your argument and tactics defending it are so stupid that I am coming to believe that you are stupid.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

My personal interpretation of why a random roll should be used, both for this and in general, is that the roll represents a large number of factors which interact in complicated ways and are beyond both the PC's (conscious) knowledge and most players' interests, and thus are abstracted to make Mister Cavern's job easier.

[mean_liar]

An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions. But they can't be friendly or hostile to the player characters until the player characters and the NPC actually meet. ...

And if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Frank, I believe, is only arguing that attitude extremes that obviate diplomacy (such as friendliness and hostility) should be beyond the GM's reach as much as instantly declaring combat itself over before it's started.

And that's a really succinct way to put things. And instead...

...if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

...

The first impression is like the first, and arguably most important attack of a battle. If you announce that combat music is starting that is like declaring that the diplomat just got a critical hit to the face. If you didn't roll any dice and simply determined that because of MC-whim, it's like you opened the battle by announcing that the players were surprised and they all took a critical hit to the face. It's the opposite of fair.

That emphasis regarding "needs to be random" is telling. Rather than just have Friendly and Hostile out-of-bounds while everything in-between is determined on an ad hoc basis (GM "feel" for the NPCs or random result) - a system that gives the GM room to tailor and write for NPCs while not opening up the possibility of GM-abuse-of-power obviating Diplomacy as a skill - no, everything including Friendly and Hostile should be randomly rolled for.

And then that gets followed up with how awful it is that you could get a Hostile result without player input.

Random results that begin an encounter at Hostile sound, to me, just as arbitrary and outside a player or character's control as GM fiat. At least with combat ambushes there's the expectation of opposition to determine efficacy (Perception v Stealth, Detections v Shrouding, etc).

[Username17]

Random results that begin an encounter at Hostile sound, to me, just as arbitrary and outside a player or character's control as GM fiat.

Obviously I disagree. Actions should have the possibility of failure. If you walk out under a white flag, there needs to be a chance that the orcs don't shoot at you. But I think it would be sad and remove tension if there was literally no chance that the orcs would just fucking shoot arrows.

Not every encounter needs to have extreme results possible. I could see a mistrustful hag that would only grant a tense parlay with anyone. And I could see a shop keeper who isn't going to be more than wary and jumpy no matter how you come through the door. But I can see no reason why extreme results should be impossible to generate.

-Username17

[hogarth]

...if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

That emphasis regarding "needs to be random" is telling.

Suppose I have a ranger PC with Favored Enemy (Gnoll). Then, using Frank's impeccable logic:

...if the DM simply determines that an encounter has no gnolls in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at gnoll-killing without rolling dice. Since the purpose of Favored Enemy (Gnoll) is to kill gnolls and all that. Which means that yes, the number of gnolls in every encounter (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Brilliant! I'm looking forward to Frank's Rolls of Gnolls system to come out.

[Username17]

Suppose I have a ranger PC with Favored Enemy (Gnoll). Then, using Frank's impeccable logic:

...if the DM simply determines that an encounter has no gnolls in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at gnoll-killing without rolling dice. Since the purpose of Favored Enemy (Gnoll) is to kill gnolls and all that. Which means that yes, the number of gnolls in every encounter (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Brilliant! I'm looking forward to Frank's Rolls of Gnolls system to come out.

I know you're trying to be flippant, but yes. If you don't give the Ranger random rolls for tracking, stealth, and scouting in order to enter an encounter with gnolls, you are robbing the player of agency.

If you just set up an encounter and there are monsters on the other side of the board without giving the players the opportunity to influence those results by using their abilities and rolling dice then the entire non-combat portion of the game is reduced to magical teaparty and MC whim. The dice have to get rolled sometimes.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

...if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

That emphasis regarding "needs to be random" is telling.

Suppose I have a ranger PC with Favored Enemy (Gnoll). Then, using Frank's impeccable logic:

...if the DM simply determines that an encounter has no gnolls in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at gnoll-killing without rolling dice. Since the purpose of Favored Enemy (Gnoll) is to kill gnolls and all that. Which means that yes, the number of gnolls in every encounter (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Brilliant! I'm looking forward to Frank's Rolls of Gnolls system to come out.

Favored enemy(Gnoll) is a static ability that grants a bonus to other abilities. Diplomacy is a specific tactic. Forcing the PCs to auto-fail/succeed at a tactic is different than not choosing a situation where they get to add some plusses to their rolls.

[mean_liar]

Random results that begin an encounter at Hostile sound, to me, just as arbitrary and outside a player or character's control as GM fiat.

Obviously I disagree. Actions should have the possibility of failure. If you walk out under a white flag, there needs to be a chance that the orcs don't shoot at you. But I think it would be sad and remove tension if there was literally no chance that the orcs would just fucking shoot arrows.

I think that in terms of a universal Diplomacy system, having the sociopathic enemy du jour start off as Hostile-1 with random results between Friendly-1 and Hostile-1 available for insta-creation by a GM who doesn't want to guesstimate their status can still create those moments.

For example, the orcs are at Hostile-1. Emerging from cover with a white flag is an attempt at Diplomacy, and you take it from there. Emerging from cover without an attempt to engage them means that they're forgoing Diplomacy and well, that means you can go right to the fighting then, yes?

[MGuy]

I can't understand how you still completely missed everything I said.

Fuck. You.

For the last fucking time before you go on ignore: I haven't missed what you've said. What you've said is retarded. There is a difference. I understand your argument, I think your argument is retarded. Because you keep repeating it over and over again thinking it will somehow convince me when it hasn't for fucking months of real time means that you personally are retarded.

If you repeat an argument over and over again and people don't magically convert to your way of thinking, it is entirely possible that they aren't blind and deaf and that they haven't misunderstood you. It's entirely possible that they simply don't agree with you. It is thus entirely possible that either you or they are simply wrong. And you're going to have to either reevaluate your own position or make a more persuasive argument. Because after people have read it and responded to it at length five fucking times, chances are they understand your argument as stated pretty fucking well.

I am saying that the original/initial/beginning attitude/disposition/general behavior of a creature shouldn't be fucking random.

And we know that you're saying this. And you're wrong. Because if you accept this premise (as 3e's failed diplomacy system does), then the success or failure of the diplomancer is 100% decided by the MC without giving the player any possible chance for their schemes to succeed or fail.

An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions. But they can't be friendly or hostile to the player characters until the player characters and the NPC actually meet. Because being hostile to someone is a transitive fucking verb. It requires not only the NPC (who is hostile), but also the interaction of the PC (who the NPC is hostile to).

And if the DM simply determines that shit in a non-random fashion, then the PC has failed at diplomacy without rolling dice. Since the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent hostilities and all that. Which means that yes, the attitude of the NPC (as defined in D&D terms) not only should, but needs to be "fucking random".

Now if the PCs make an animal/diplomacy check to change whether a given "thing" is friendly, unfriendly, or neutral after they've encountered it (before they fight it) is something else entirely and specifically "not" what I'm even talking about.

No. See, that's exactly what you're talking about, because you are making the assumption that the NPC should be friendly or unfriendly to the player characters nonrandomly without having the players getting a say or a chance to prevent that course of events. And that is bullshit. The very premise of your statement, that the MC should have the diplomat succeed or fail to get a friendly reception without rolling dice is inherently wrong. So all your other statements about this problem are simply compoundedly wrong.

The first impression is like the first, and arguably most important attack of a battle. If you announce that combat music is starting that is like declaring that the diplomat just got a critical hit to the face. If you didn't roll any dice and simply determined that because of MC-whim, it's like you opened the battle by announcing that the players were surprised and they all took a critical hit to the face. It's the opposite of fair.

Stop acting like a wounded duck. I don't misunderstand your argument, I disagree with your argument. And I'm insulted by your constant refrain that my continued disagreement with you constitutes reading comprehension failure on my part. For the last fucking time: I understand your argument. Your argument is stupid. Your argument and tactics defending it are so stupid that I am coming to believe that you are stupid.

-Username17

1) Firstly fuck you. Yes you have missed half of my damn argument because half the damn stuff you've brought up is stuff I talked about and that you didn't/refused to respond to. You haven't even met the arguments I've laid down before which is why I repeated them. Over and over. You even ignored the examples I brought up and slated me as saying things I explicitly said I wasn't talking about. At the beginning of half of my damn posts I mention this and the fact that you are only responding to the accusation now only further shows that you hadn't been reading them before when I fucking posted it. I have said repeatedly that disposition shouldn't be random because it doesn't make any fucking sense for it to be. I even pointed out that you basically agree with me because "fearful, angry, etc" are dispositions just like "friendly" and "hostile" are. You accept the DM making THAT shit up but you don't accept a friend being friendly or an enemy being hostile. The fact that you just choose to use different words because you don't like the way they sound is your problem and simply a semantic one at that. I even stated that I didn't care if you just used different words for it because more options need to be available for disposition anyway.

2) This is the most important part right here. No I don't accept that Friendly/Neutral/Hostile be the end all of how Diplomacy works. I want the system to be changed, I want more options than the 5 in the PHB, I want the system to be less retarded. I expressed this in my responses (which of course you didn't read). I want Initial Disposition/Attitude/Whatever to not only be reasonably adjustable through players' actions (emphasis on the fact that I want ACTIONS, actual ACTIONS to change this), but for it to specifically give a range of abstract reactions allowed to the DM in response to what player's are trying to do. If the DM wants to roll randomly from a table of reactions then fine whatever. But I believe that it isn't asking much to allow the DM to have some room to actually choose what these motherfuckers do.

3) Your biggest problem with my argument is born out of the fact that you assume I'm arguing something I'm not. Just to make sure you see it here it is again:

See, that's exactly what you're talking about, because you are making the assumption that the NPC should be friendly or unfriendly to the player characters nonrandomly without having the players getting a say or a chance to prevent that course of events. And that is bullshit. The very premise of your statement, that the MC should have the diplomat succeed or fail to get a friendly reception without rolling dice is inherently wrong. So all your other statements about this problem are simply compoundedly wrong.

That is failure at reading comprehension if I do say so myself. I've never said, insinuated or suggested that I accept 3E Diplomacy as is because if I did I wouldn't be posting in a thread about changing it. Because of your failure to understand or even attempt to understand my argument the rest of your argument against mine misses my damn point(s). I'm the one that should be insulted by the fact that you're basing this all on an assumption I never showed agreement with and only NOW, months afterward, are laying down the fact that you don't know what my argument is in your own words.

4) I don't believe there is any "player agency" in having random rolls that aren't actually influence d by actions the player takes. If you're rolling at random without any actual actions being made to influence that roll how then is there any player agency in what you're proposing? This is the other part of my argument. Player's have to DO something to get a roll. If they aren't actively waving that White Flag then yes they should be subject to the whims of the DM. If they are, and therefore making an attempt at diplomacy, then they are performing an action and therefore deserve a roll of some sort.

[MGuy]

Double Post:

Double Post.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Username17]

The fact that you just choose to use different words because you don't like the way they sound is your problem and simply a semantic one at that.

No. It is not merely a semantic problem. It's the difference between transitivity and intransitivity. Things which require a subject and things which do not. There can be no agreement, partial or otherwise, so long as you continue to contend that a witch can have an attitude to the players without actually have the players be part of her world yet.

Nor can there be any agreement if you continue to insist that the witch should have her attitude to the players set by the MC without giving the players an actual chance for their style of approach to make any difference.

Anything you claim to agree with me about is ashes and dust. Those two things are lines in the sand that you cannot cross without being an asshole.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Again you are either misreading what I've said deliberately or just being plain stupid. I honestly don't know what thread you're reading. I didn't say the witch should just have an attitude to the players I'm saying she should have a general fucking attitude for uninvited guests. This sets a number of possible reactions that are appropriate for various people coming to her secluded swamp house. I have a general attitude toward random people knocking at my fucking door. Hell any common person should. If she took all this time to seclude herself I'd say she'd be rather antisocial about the whole meeting maybe even unfriendly. It would be completely reasonable for her to be unfriendly toward a group of random people showing up at her door uninvited seeing as though she took the time to seclude herself. But hey she may like children and if the PCs did their homework and made themselves look like children she might even start out friendly toward them. That right there is allowing for PC actions to influence her initial disposition. By identifying themselves as something the hag favors they've effected her attitude. By virtue of player actions and a successful disguise they were able to do it. Something I swear I've mentioned being supportive of before. Oh yeah it came up a few times with Kaelik to which I responded:

If I'm a witch and you come through my forest/swamp, as long as you don't associate yourself immediately (through clothing, visible features etc) with something I care about then I will react to you the same way I react to any other uninvited guest as per my character motivation/general disposition. If you come dressed in a particular way to associate yourself with something I care about then my disposition toward you will be altered as appropriate.

If you are dressed in a manner that makes me think you're part of a group I associate with then I will have a friendly disposition toward you. If you come in a fashion I dislike I will be more hostile. No fucking roll needed because you didn't make a fucking action. That's just the situation.

Being charming enough for me to fucking care is going to actually require action. Bringing a gift and opening your mouth or doing other things upon meeting me (doesn't even have to be face to face) to try to win me over is taking action to change my disposition, thus requiring a roll. And it is also explicitly NOT what I'm even arguing about.

That's me totally saying its ok for player actions to change disposition and effect reactions. Sure does fucking look like I'm open tot he idea seeing as I supported it right there in that witch example.

However, just to make sure you are reading what I just posted earlier:

2) This is the most important part right here. No I don't accept that Friendly/Neutral/Hostile be the end all of how Diplomacy works. I want the system to be changed, I want more options than the 5 in the PHB, I want the system to be less retarded. I expressed this in my responses (which of course you didn't read). I want Initial Disposition/Attitude/Whatever to not only be reasonably adjustable through players' actions (emphasis on the fact that I want ACTIONS, actual ACTIONS to change this), but for it to specifically give a range of abstract reactions allowed to the DM in response to what player's are trying to do. If the DM wants to roll randomly from a table of reactions then fine whatever. But I believe that it isn't asking much to allow the DM to have some room to actually choose what these motherfuckers do.

If the PCs are taking any diplomatic actions I want that shit to matter. I've said this over and over:

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

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

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

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

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

Now while I may not want "reactions" to be completely random I have more than been open to character actions changing a target's disposition. Why it is that you keep repeating the lie that I don't want PC actions to do anything is well beyond me. I can only continue pointing out the fact that you are either not reading my responses or deliberately ignoring them.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'm still right to say that NPCs should have some mechanics that back up whatever their personality is. Then the PCs can try to diplomance them from there. Personality is equivalent to terrain in combat, it provides some modifiers and rules. Exactly which ones are there in any encounter is DM fiat after that its on the players to come up with something.