[3.X] Diplomacy Hack: Reaction Rolls (PL, please stay out)

[deaddmwalking]

But if he's 'friendly to elves, indifferent towards humans and unfriendly towards half-orcs' is he willing to forgive the party for having a half-orc if they have two elves?

If the party has 1 elf, 2 humans, and 1 half-orc, how does he really feel?

Obviously, he's going to be somewhat conflicted - but as the DM you want to know how he behaves. Maybe he's having the kind of day where he's real fixated on the half-orc in the party and you get a bad reaction roll. Or maybe he's willing to ignore everyone else....

And of course, what if the party is just coming back to announce they completed a quest? Isn't that going to make him more 'helpful'?

[zugschef]

Your position is literally "I don't think there needs to be a reaction roll, because I just gave an example where the characters roll a reaction roll." It's pants-on-head retarded. Your argument contradicts itself, I can't make any counterpoints, because if you follow your own logic you've already conceded the need for a reaction roll. There's really nothing else to say at that point.

If I'm understanding you correctly your position is that determining who gets to act is a reaction roll.

The way I see it, rolling dice to determine who gets to act in the possible social squence preceding a possible combat scenario, is not the same as rolling dice to determine if someone is hostile or friendly.

That's because if you've determined by rolling dice that the encounter is friendly or hostile, you still don't know if you've got the chance to use social skills/abilities before rolling initiative, and if so, who has the first chance using said skills/abilities.

Maybe I've missed that part, but nowhere does the presented mechanic (and that's a reaction roll) determine if I can use fuckin' diplomacy on that hungry ogre or not before he tries to kill me. It just fuckin' determines that the ogre is fuckin' hostile or just maybe peaceful because... giant frog. So if he's hostile it's still up to mtp or the mc if I get to sweet talk at all, let alone if that makes him believe me when I say that I'm diseased and will bring him something to eat in exchange for my life.

[Username17]

If I'm understanding you correctly your position is that determining who gets to act is a reaction roll.

Yes. That is what has been being discussed this entire thread.

The way I see it, rolling dice to determine who gets to act in the possible social squence preceding a possible combat scenario, is not the same as rolling dice to determine if someone is hostile or friendly.

Of course those aren't the same. But determining whether someone is "friendly" or not is beyond the scope of what is being talked about here. The outputs of the reaction roll are essentially "Fight, Ignore, Talk" and whether someone is hostile or not is a completely secondary concern.

Getting a good result on the reaction roll against Asmodeus doesn't mean you don't stab him in the face, it just means you get to talk to him first. He's still red team, you're still blue team, so after the social part it is very likely that you'll start combat (unless someone presented a good reason not to in your diplomacy phase).

-Username17

[MGuy]

That's what her social skill/ability is for. Not some reaction test.

If it might happen, then by definition a test is involved.

I'm seeing this from another perspective.

It's something the villain needs to accomplish, so she has to first win the "social initiative" and then actively use a social ability which can also involve a check (like bluff or diplomacy or whatever). Then the pc can react to that.

If she doesn't do that, as a player, you normally know what you gonna do anyway. And most of the time, that's not asking and killing the bitch for loot and xp.

If I (as the pc who is no diplomancer) would be the first to talk (winning the charisma check sticking to my example), I'd probably defer the social scene and attack, skipping her chance of using any social abilities to make me listen.

So that's why I've said that there is no reaction test necessary even when she only might make me listen.

The difference between a reaction test and the process of first determining who can first use social skills/abilities is that the former makes the characters on one side (the one for whom you roll the reaction test) unable to consciously decide their actions. The latter lets people actually do something.

It's stupid to roll and determine that you are friendly when in fact you want to fuckin kill people. It renders people helpless and the dice decide what you do. But I really think the dice should decide if you accomplish what you intend to do. If the other side has the chance to convince/seduce/etc. you into being friendly with a successful check instead, that's something much more comprehensible and acceptable.

I don't know if I missed something essential in this thread or if i'm having a huge brainfart, but I really don't get how this is even remotely worth discussing... *shrug*

It's not that you missed anything at all. It's just that what Frank is talking about now is different from the OP and indeed what came before. You should really go check out this discussion before you even start down this road. As far as I can tell the language being used by Frank right now is wholly different than the last time this very same thing was brought up and it seems that others like DeadDM still aren't talking about the same thing as far as I can tell.

[virgil]

Security
This covers the scene as a whole, basically deciding how safe the subject feels. Note, it is possible to be worried in an environment normally safe. If an intruder takes the subject by surprise, they are still feeling the environment is safe. If the subject is warned of their coming, be it a note of warning or even breaking down the door downstairs; their mind will adjust their perceived security downward to accommodate.

• Threatened: Safety is actively questioned, such as high stakes drug deal or an invasion site.
• Worried: Dangerous neighborhood, carrying high value items in public, exposed condition.
• Regular: Public, yet non-threatening
• Safe: Secure and familiar circumstances.

Engagement
This covers how the party presents itself to the subject, indicating its desired outcome.

• Assaulted: Direct attacks have been made.
• Threatening: Weapons are drawn, aspersions are cast, and is otherwise making their hostile intent clear.
• Unwelcoming: Isn't threatening, but is presenting the bare minimum of social niceties.
• Passive: Social wallflower, unaware of subject.
• Accommodating: Engaging the attention in a non-hostile, welcoming, manner
• Aiding: Is actively improving their condition, be it applying healing magic, offering gifts, or defending the subject.

Bias
Personal prejudices and assumptions the subject has, including prior history with the specific person.

• Adversary: Personal nemesis, existential threat
• Enemy: Active dislike of target; be it prior history of violence, target of heavy racism, or even faction enemy.
• Distrust: Outsider (in an insular community), negative history, and similar negative prejudices.
• Stranger: Unremarkable, passive
• Innocuous: Friendly & familiar history, nonthreatening prejudice such as cute children or frat brothers
• Unguarded: Hold great fondness, feels secure with their presence

[Dean]

I like everything you've written. I might change "Engagement" to "Interaction" and I would either eliminate the Passive entry altogether or redefine the Passive and Accommodating entries to create a wider gap between the two to help me define which is which.

If we start plugging the numbers into these categories to create the desired spread of results we want then I would feel happy moving on to discussing the actual social system that would follow.

[JonSetanta]

Virgil that's too many.

I for one could never memorize that list.

[Dean]

I think you could if it was standardized a bit. If we made the latter two categories have 5 items apiece and an identical number set all the way down that would help with memorization. We could get rid of "Safe" in the environment category and have that just be a 3 point scale, I would be ok with that. I think I could memorize 2 identical sliding point scales and then figure out whether the environment was "Deadly" "Worrying" or "Regular" (possibly even renaming regular to safe).

[virgil]

It would be numerical, and for the moment, the numbers are pulled out the aether and certainly not going to be the final values.

Security: +0 Regular
[*]Ranges from -4 Threatened to +2 Safely Home
Engagement: +0 Passive
[*]Ranges from -6 attacked to +4 for gifts in hand
Bias: +0 Stranger
[*]Ranges from -6 nemesis to +4 Yo Momma

EDIT: As dean points out, standardizing the range works as well

[Username17]

I don't understand why you'd want to lump everything into categories with names like "bias" in the first place. It's a test, what's wrong with just having a list of modifiers? Add up all that apply.

Make the big list, cross out the redundant ones, and move on. There's no particular reason why a character's relatively non-threatening posture has to "not stack" with the moderately threatening surroundings or whatever.

There's a chance that you'll stack up negative modifiers like voltron and push the encounter into instant combat or whatever, but that's OK if the players know when to expect that sort of thing.

-Username17

[Dean]

I feel like categories keep the things you need to run through your head light and tight cause that's how mental blocking works. From my understanding Frank you and I both run sandbox games that allow the party to go where they will and has the DM react accordingly. If I'm suddenly creating a smoky Bazaar tent with a shady merchant and some Saurdaukar guards around I'm already doing a lot of things. Being able to quickly run this newly created character and the party's presentation through a blocked list would make the process much easier than having to open to the Diplomacy section to find all the modifiers that apply. Two sliding scales and "Is it safe?" would be fast and easy to do so I like that approach. I could do it with a group of Harpy's perched over a mountain pass and I could do it with a racist Bartender just as quickly.

Here might be my modifications to your list along with my own ass-pulled numbers atm.

Security
This covers the scene as a whole, basically deciding how safe the subject feels. Note, it is possible to be worried in an environment normally safe. If an intruder takes the subject by surprise, they are still feeling the environment is safe. If the subject is warned of their coming, be it a note of warning or even breaking down the door downstairs; their mind will adjust their perceived security downward to accommodate.

• -4: Threatened: Safety is actively questioned, such as high stakes drug deal or an invasion site.
  -2: Worried: Dangerous neighborhood, carrying high value items in public, exposed condition.
  +0: Safe: Public, yet non-threatening

Presentation
This covers how the party presents itself to the subject, indicating its desired outcome.

• -4: Assaulting: Direct attacks have been made.
  -2: Threatening: Weapons are drawn, aspersions are cast, and is otherwise making their hostile intent clear.
  +0: Terse: Isn't threatening, but is presenting the bare minimum of social niceties.
  +2: Normal: Engaging in a non-hostile, friendly manner
  +4: Aiding: Is actively improving their condition, offering gifts or aid

Bias
Personal prejudices and assumptions the subject has, including prior history with the specific person.

• -4: Enemy: Active dislike of target; be it prior history of violence, target of heavy racism, or even faction enemy.
  -2: Distrust: Outsider (in an insular community), negative history, and similar negative prejudices.
  +0: Stranger: Unremarkable, passive
  +2: Innocuous: Friendly & familiar history, nonthreatening prejudice such as cute children or frat brothers
  +4: Unguarded: Hold great personal fondness, feels secure with their presence

[zugschef]

If I'm understanding you correctly your position is that determining who gets to act is a reaction roll.

Yes. That is what has been being discussed this entire thread.

OK.

The way I see it, rolling dice to determine who gets to act in the possible social squence preceding a possible combat scenario, is not the same as rolling dice to determine if someone is hostile or friendly.

Of course those aren't the same. But determining whether someone is "friendly" or not is beyond the scope of what is being talked about here. The outputs of the reaction roll are essentially "Fight, Ignore, Talk" and whether someone is hostile or not is a completely secondary concern.

Getting a good result on the reaction roll against Asmodeus doesn't mean you don't stab him in the face, it just means you get to talk to him first. He's still red team, you're still blue team, so after the social part it is very likely that you'll start combat (unless someone presented a good reason not to in your diplomacy phase).

Ok, I'll stick to my brainstorm from before.

So the party meets Asmodeus. Then everybody involved rolls a d20 and adds his/her cha mod. Highest goes first. Now if Asmodeus wins he can talk shit, if the party wins, they can talk shit.. if they want. If they don't, you either roll for initiative or both parties don't wanna talk and aren't in for a fight, as well.

Now there wasn't a roll to determine if anybody is friendly or hostile or whatever, because people and monsters have motives. (Everything else sounds like Gygaxian dickery to me, where the dice determine if Asmodeus feels like giving you a quest, imprison your soul forever or just fuckin' kill you outright.) If it's her/his turn according to the charisma check and s/he decides to do so, the person/monster can, however, try to influence the other team, using any skills/abilities available.

Now you may not like that mechanic for whatever reason, but there is no roll involved which determines one side's initial attitude.

It's not that you missed anything at all. It's just that what Frank is talking about now is different from the OP and indeed what came before. You should really go check out this discussion before you even start down this road. As far as I can tell the language being used by Frank right now is wholly different than the last time this very same thing was brought up and it seems that others like DeadDM still aren't talking about the same thing as far as I can tell.

This explains, why this is all so confusing, I guess.

[Username17]

Ok, I'll stick to my brainstorm from before.

So the party meets Asmodeus. Then everybody involved rolls a d20 and adds his/her cha mod. Highest goes first. Now if Asmodeus wins he can talk shit, if the party wins, they can talk shit.. if they want. If they don't, you either roll for initiative or both parties don't wanna talk and aren't in for a fight, as well.

Now there wasn't a roll to determine if anybody is friendly or hostile or whatever, because people and monsters have motives. (Everything else sounds like Gygaxian dickery to me, where the dice determine if Asmodeus feels like giving you a quest, imprison your soul forever or just fuckin' kill you outright.) If it's her/his turn according to the charisma check and s/he decides to do so, the person/monster can, however, try to influence the other team, using any skills/abilities available.

Now you may not like that mechanic for whatever reason, but there is no roll involved which determines one side's initial attitude.

I don't like it, and I'll tell you why in a bit, but from the standpoint of game mechanics, that is determining initial attitude with a die roll. If you lose social initiative your initial attitude is non-combative, which is the only attitude the diplomancer actually gives a fuck about.

The only thing initial attitude even matters for is whether or not the characters get to say words, use social abilities, and roll dice. If the answer is yes, how "friendly" or "respectful" or whatever the fuck the NPCs are can be generated from whatever diplomacy system you have using whatever combination of rules, guidelines, and magical teaparty you think is appropriate. But if the initial attitude is "combat begins" then the diplomacy system never gets consulted.

Now, the specific of why I think your system is a bad one is not because it only generates one attitude ("non-combative"). That's actually the minimum that a system for beginning encounters with can bring to the table and not be completely useless. Its' fairly suboptimal I think for the "starts combat" reaction to be completely magical teaparty (creature wins social initiative, decides to start combat because reasons), but that can be handled. The issue that really kills it for me is that game mechanically low charisma creatures are more likely to lose initiative and thus less likely to start combat. It's just simulation failure if an Orc raiding party is more likely to stop and parlay than a Drow raiding party is.

-Username17

[virgil]

I don't understand why you'd want to lump everything into categories with names like "bias" in the first place. It's a test, what's wrong with just having a list of modifiers? Add up all that apply.

Make the big list, cross out the redundant ones, and move on. There's no particular reason why a character's relatively non-threatening posture has to "not stack" with the moderately threatening surroundings or whatever.

There's a chance that you'll stack up negative modifiers like voltron and push the encounter into instant combat or whatever, but that's OK if the players know when to expect that sort of thing.

The thing is that I'm trying to have it be only three modifiers, each having a range of severity akin to Balance's narrow surface. The non-threatening posture (engagement) specifically does stack with the moderately threatening surroundings (security), because those are two separate modifiers.

As I mentioned before, simply coming up with a list of independent modifiers without having them fit on sliding scales is difficult for me because I already came up with four varied modifiers and the cognitive bias that creates is a real hurdle.

[zugschef]

Now, the specific of why I think your system is a bad one is not because it only generates one attitude ("non-combative"). That's actually the minimum that a system for beginning encounters with can bring to the table and not be completely useless. Its' fairly suboptimal I think for the "starts combat" reaction to be completely magical teaparty (creature wins social initiative, decides to start combat because reasons), but that can be handled. The issue that really kills it for me is that game mechanically low charisma creatures are more likely to lose initiative and thus less likely to start combat. It's just simulation failure if an Orc raiding party is more likely to stop and parlay than a Drow raiding party is.

Now there's the problem.

Party A encounters Party B. You roll for social initiative. Then there are basically three possibilities: 1. attack, 2. skip or 3. talk.
1. You immediately roll for initiative.
2. Other party's turn to choose.
3. Use social skills.
3.1 Success: whatever you wanted to accomplish.
3.2 Fail: other party's turn.

Said orc raiding party doesn't get to outright attack if the players win social initiative. True. But the players must use their skills successfully to influence the orcs. That's gonna be awfully hard, and if it fails it's the orcs' turn and they can simply attack if that's what they want. Also that's where my proposed attitude tags come in. An orc raiding party might have the "won't parley" tag and unless one of the pcs has a special ability to circumvent that they automatically fail at any diplomatic attempts.

[Cyberzombie]

I don't think anyone should ever be forced to talk. You should always have the option of just trying to greataxe the other guy in the head. Negotiations are something that both sides have to agree to before they start.

[JonSetanta]

I don't think anyone should ever be forced to talk. You should always have the option of just trying to greataxe the other guy in the head. Negotiations are something that both sides have to agree to before they start.

That's the PC priority since a player has freedom of choice over their own character's actions. Social checks are for NPC reaction.

[Lago PARANOIA]

When you meet the Ghoul King, you actually do want to get a Comicbook/JRPG style mad speech about his evil plans before combat begins. And if that has some potential fear riders and actually matters game mechanically, so much the better.

-Username17

Can you imagine the ways in which a DM could abuse this system -- or ways in which the players can subvert this system in a way that breaks versimilitude in return for giving the players some kind of benefit?

I mean, the first time players start the combat with a 'fear' effect because they listened to the BBEG's speech, you've pretty much incentivized the PCs to start murdering anyone who's not explicitly on their side to start talking. I think the absolute best you can hope for is forcing a quick cutscene. Which means no riders, no villainous transformations, no holding the PCs in place for more than six seconds so that the guards can be called, none of that.

Anything more than that and your game devolves into Knights of the Dinner Table.

[Username17]

When you meet the Ghoul King, you actually do want to get a Comicbook/JRPG style mad speech about his evil plans before combat begins. And if that has some potential fear riders and actually matters game mechanically, so much the better.

-Username17

Can you imagine the ways in which a DM could abuse this system -- or ways in which the players can subvert this system in a way that breaks versimilitude in return for giving the players some kind of benefit?

I mean, the first time players start the combat with a 'fear' effect because they listened to the BBEG's speech, you've pretty much incentivized the PCs to start murdering anyone who's not explicitly on their side to start talking. I think the absolute best you can hope for is forcing a quick cutscene. Which means no riders, no villainous transformations, no holding the PCs in place for more than six seconds so that the guards can be called, none of that.

Anything more than that and your game devolves into Knights of the Dinner Table.

No. The system is actually in place to prevent "I waste him with my crossbow!" Exalted has mechanical effects you can slap your enemies with in social combat, but no one can actually use it, because if anyone so much as thinks they mightbe outclassed socially they just "start combat" and that's like getting infinite perfect social defenses for free. The entire social combat system and all the charms that go with it is just a load of wasted space because no one who doesn't think they are going to win social combat is going to stand there while you belittle them rather than just drawing their daiklaive and charging.

But if a social meister can roll some dice and mandate at least one social action round, then they get to do at least one social thing and the investment in social dickery isn't a priori a waste of time. And then it's up to them to do some sort of social combos or leave the other side sufficiently intrigued to let them continue if they want to take any more social actions, but at least they get to fucking act.

Having die rolls mandate the social phase comes before the battle phase of an encounter at least some of the time is necessary and sufficient for a social action system to be something that has some value as a thing to invest character points in.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

When you meet the Ghoul King, you actually do want to get a Comicbook/JRPG style mad speech about his evil plans before combat begins.

And the random part of the "mechanic" utterly undermines that goal.

IF you don't use the random part of the mechanic you have made a lie of all your "must haz random fairnesses!" claims.

But IF you use the random part of the mechanic then no, you DON'T have a mechanic that lets your lead villain make a mad speech. He MIGHT do the whole "You and I are not so different/Join Me" speech. BUT actually its significantly likely he will froth into a worldless rage and just attack you and some random 1st level gate goblin mook will attempt "You and I are not so different/Join me".

If you want to argue that you are generating appropriately timed dramatic moments with your mechanics... you can't use a fucking random roll you fucking idiot.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The system is actually in place to prevent "I waste him with my crossbow!"

So how does your system prevent mundane subversions of the system like putting wax in your ears or having your blind cave slug familiar jolt you out of negotiations?

[Username17]

The system is actually in place to prevent "I waste him with my crossbow!"

So how does your system prevent mundane subversions of the system like putting wax in your ears or having your blind cave slug familiar jolt you out of negotiations?

The bonuses and penalties only go so far. Yes, you can kick the door in, weapons bristling, and this will penalize the reaction and make it more likely that you can skip the social phase with Count Bludminder. But it's not guaranteed. The Vampire lord still has a chance to get a social action phase off first.

Also, if social phases are a thing that generally happens in encounters, players won't scuttle all their social niceties in the first place and will generally have things to do in social phases other than whine to the MC about how they want to fire their crossbow.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also, if social phases are a thing that generally happens in encounters, players won't scuttle all their social niceties in the first place and will generally have things to do in social phases other than whine to the MC about how they want to fire their crossbow.

-Username17

I think the system would go over a lot better if the reaction system was intentionally seeded so that players deciding to default to diplomacy or at least zingers had an advantage over players who decided to default to violence.

One of the most annoying things about cRPGs, especially Bioware games (though apparently Mass Effect is a lot less bad about it), is that it always feels like the NPCs keep getting the last words and bon mots and witty banter.

If the system was set up in such a way so that the typical outcome of a Lich Lord ranting about how doomed the players were was for the players to reverse his fear effect with a Friendship Speech or if the typical outcome of the assassin geisha trying to seduce the party wizard was to run from the room in tears after the wizard brought up something humiliating in her childhood it'd go over a lot better.

[ETortoise]

I think you'd definitely want the actions of diplomancers to potentially have an effect in the combat phase of the encounter. That way diplomacy isn't an all or nothing gambit and the players might be willing to risk the Lich Kings fear affect to have a chance to cow his lackeys into betraying him (or shake his resolve with quotes from his dead wife's journal, or whatever.)

Social actions that don't succeed in bypassing combat altogether could have their affect in a morale system. A boast or threat could make enemies more likely to break, or to surrender rather than flee when they do break.

[virgil]

So we've got three scaling modifiers, unless someone's offering an addition to the list(s) or providing something more concrete than what I've got so far.

Security
This covers the scene as a whole, basically deciding how safe the subject feels. Note, it is possible to be worried in an environment normally safe. If an intruder takes the subject by surprise, they are still feeling the environment is safe. If the subject is warned of their coming, be it a note of warning or even breaking down the door downstairs; their mind will adjust their perceived security downward to accommodate.

• +X: Threatened: Safety is actively questioned, such as high stakes drug deal or an invasion site.
  +X: Worried: Dangerous neighborhood, carrying high value items in public, exposed condition.
  +X: Safe: Public, yet non-threatening

Presentation
This covers how the party presents itself to the subject, indicating its desired outcome.

• +X: Assaulting: Direct attacks have been made.
  +X: Threatening: Weapons are drawn, aspersions are cast, and is otherwise making their hostile intent clear.
  +X: Terse: Isn't threatening, but is presenting the bare minimum of social niceties.
  +X: Normal: Engaging in a non-hostile, friendly manner
  +X: Aiding: Is actively improving their condition, offering gifts or aid

Bias
Personal prejudices and assumptions the subject has, including prior history with the specific person.

• +X: Enemy: Active dislike of target; be it prior history of violence, target of heavy racism, or even faction enemy.
  +X: Distrust: Outsider (in an insular community), negative history, and similar negative prejudices.
  +X: Stranger: Unremarkable, passive
  +X: Innocuous: Friendly & familiar history, nonthreatening prejudice such as cute children or frat brothers
  +X: Unguarded: Hold great personal fondness, feels secure with their presence

Next, we must come up with the equivalent of the Social Same Game Test, which is a list of the most common scenarios.
[*]Dungeon Crawl: The party bursts through the door, taking the guardian monster by surprise
[*]Bandit Ambush: Unaware, the party is spotted by a group of bandits looking for trouble
[*]Ale & Whores: Pockets bursting with treasure, the party enters the tavern for a party
[*]Hansel & Gretel: A wicked witch stirs her brew, and our party happens upon the gingerbread house on their quest to find the missing children, several avenues of attack present themselves

• They smell long pork, so they bust down the door to negotiate by sword point
  Cautiously, they knock & ask if she's seen any children